When we talk about the First Amendment as a prohibition on the establishment of religion, it is very hard for them to accept the fact that there were established churches on the state level, and that they would continue in existence until 1833. Why is it that there should be an established religion on the state level, but not a national established church? The Church of England was something that they wanted to avoid, whereas they accepted the fact that the citizens of Massachusetts could have a state established church if they wanted. What does it mean to have the free exercise of religion? The free exercise of religion, as defined in the 18th century by Americans, by the founders, was the free exercise of Christian religion. It could be a Protestant religion, it could be evangelical, it could be Catholic. Agnostics were frowned upon, atheists were not accepted, and non-Christian faiths were not accepted. So when you look at the establishment of religion and the free exercise clause, it is far more limited in the 18th century than it would be in the 21st century. Freedom of speech is another good example where people take it literally, which is to say, I should be allowed to do whatever I want. I think there are several things going on here. One is, in the 18th century, freedom of speech was often identified with the rights of a Republican society. It was a political right that would encourage the free expression of ideas having to do with your political responsibility. It has been transformed in the 20th century into flag burning, naked dancing, as an expression of freedom of speech, which an 18th century person would never recognize. As for yelling fire in a crowded theater, there are restrictions, and the Supreme Court has recognized those restrictions, that as you have certain social responsibilities, and you do not have an absolute right. So all of these rights are conditional. The hardest thing, I think, to get people sensitive to is the flip side of rights, because the flip side of rights, in my view, is obligations. And so I think the assumption of the Bill of Rights is that you will live up to your obligations as a citizen, that you will behave in accordance with the general prohibitions and the general limitations on one's liberty, and that one will, in fact, perform one's duties as a citizen, and to be responsible in doing that. Doesn't the state have the right to limit your liberty in certain ways for the public good? Why shouldn't you be forced to incriminate yourself? What does it mean to preserve those rights not enumerated? Does it mean that they're fixed in time, as Justice White thought in 1791, or does it mean that the Supreme Court has the power to define this as every generation goes on? I talk about this in a history class, and I talk about it often in terms of why was the 14th Amendment necessary? Why is it that Congress in 1864 decided it had to protect the rights of its citizens, in this case former slaves, against the actions of states? And so you can talk about how the state tried to re-impose limitations on the ability of blacks to testify in court against whites, the legal rights, et cetera, et cetera, so you can get to the whole idea of what are the rights of citizenship, and then why were those rights being ignored in this period, and then how the federal government took a position to guarantee those, and then how it failed. Or I'll talk about various individual court decisions that will highlight the operation of one of these rights, like the Miranda decision. It's not until the 1950s, for instance, that your Miranda rights have been assured. And the reason for that is that police departments were very lax in respecting these rights, and ultimately during the 1950s the courts found it necessary to insist that there are certain standards that have to be adopted.


You can't do anything underneath the tree line, or the drip line, and I just showed you that that's all wrong. You guys just lied to me the last time I was here about this, about that. I don't know what the agenda is, but it seems like it's just about cutting these trees down and getting rid of this park, and making it a concrete garden. This guy is one of those concrete gardens. Here's the thing. In all of the discussions here, you haven't changed a cubic inch of the amount of concrete of your plants that you plan to pour into this small space. It's a small space. We all know this is a small tiny space. When you have a plan that's going to have X amount of cubic feet yards of concrete that you're going to pour in, and you're not budging on that, it shows that you have a different agenda. And I don't know what it is, but have fun with your concrete gardens. Thank you. Who else? Sure. Come on up. Mr. Messing. Thank you. This is work. Welcome. My position as usual is... Charles Messing, right? Charles Messing, I think that it looks great on paper and on the screen, but the world doesn't look like that. The earth doesn't look like that. It's big and chaotic and sloppy, which is good. This is life. Life is like that. Life isn't very straight and the curved path... Any change now, if I could think of a four-syllable word for wiggle, I would use it, believe me. But I can't think of one. I want the paths to wiggle around the trees so that we can save more trees. I would like plenty of elms because they are my favorite tree. I grew up with elm trees and they get to be 100 feet tall and they don't branch out until way up there. And I read the 1960 Burlington annual report where they said, we just finished cutting down 509 elm trees. And I spoke to a woman who lived here before then and said the main street was... The trees were touching all up and down main street and all over town. So I think we should plant a lot of elms. I am not worried about the specimen aspects and keeping them away from each other. I think that forests don't care either. They get really dense. And I like that. I like nature. And I think nature is really the boss. When God or nature took the two trees near the fountain this last winter, I thought, well, really that's the guy for that job. I mean, if he wants to take a tree, he's definitely trustworthy.  I really think we should save as many as possible. We should save more than the plan allows in a sense. I just want the plan to move around the trees. I think that the more trees we save, the happier people will be. The more they will like us and our decision. And the more trees we take, the worse it's going to be. Now, there is a long term. And in 30 years, people really won't care what it looks like today or tomorrow. But it's, I don't know what 30 times 365 is, but it's quite a way away. I'll be dead. But I think it should have been done gradually so that it never has to be totally closed and denuded. And I can't wait to see what we do about the public restrooms, but that's something else. And I'd like to be in on the discussion for that. This is absolutely necessary, of course, to make the new park cleaner than the old park has become. I trust in nature. I trust in you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Messing. Who else? Wayne, come on up. Hi, I'm Wayne Senville. I live in Ward 1 and wanted to first thank, especially the volunteers. I think I'm including the city councilors and volunteers who are putting in a lot of time on this. And I don't know how much you're getting paid for the time. Fine, not much. And also the Keep Park Green folks for all the dedication and work that you've put in. And especially, like, I really appreciated Sharon taking the time to do that walkthrough with the VJ and the very thoughtful email presentation. So I appreciate that you're my ward 1 city councilor and that you're investing the time in this. Just two comments. It seems like the administration is sort of begrudgingly adding trees, maybe one tree per meeting. So I don't know what to recommend for more meetings, but I think really the number of the problem seems to be and you're all sort of under a real straight jacket with the city council resolution in terms of what you can do. And I'm hoping there's some way to either finesse it or get a little more flexibility because, you know, the fact of the matter is that saving a number of the healthy trees is going to require some level of adjustment of the plan. And unless you're willing to take that step, you're going to have four trees, two new trees, and two existing ones. So I hope that there's flexibility. I know you've got like a narrow charge that you're working with. I'm glad I'm not in your position and have to figure out how to deal with that. I really think we can do a better job here and hopefully, you know, thread the needle on this. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Sendel. Who else? Councilor Nodal. Come on up. Welcome back from Finland. Thank you. I did bring the pullback. Steer clear. Jane Nodal, Central District City Councilor. So I'm really very impressed with all the work that this group is doing. And I think it's, I hope that it will prove to be a good model for how we can move forward when there's divergent points of view on major public projects in the city of Wellington. And I'm very impressed by the very detailed work that everyone's doing at this point where like everyone knows which is Tree 87. I am hoping that the group will be able to come to a consensus. Because I think that will make it easier with anything that comes out of this committee. But I think that maybe where we are right now with plus four trees, and I'm saying plus four because I'm counting the starting point for when we pass this resolution. Not from changes that were made in the DRB process. Because the real test is what happens after what this process was able to produce. And I think all sides need to really be prepared to show some flexibility and move to the middle. But I don't think the plus four is going to be what guesses to a consensus. So I'm hoping that by the end of the night tonight we'll come up with a way to save more or plant more trees in order that everyone can feel that this was a new process, that the public dropped their appeal and doesn't walk out of this feeling that it wasn't worth it. That they took a gamble on a process and ended up being a bad bet. But let's not do that. Let's really try to come together to some, and both sides, you know, obviously, they cost a separate, both sides have to give. I had been thinking that maybe we could keep all the crab out of the trees. I'm better informed now about the importance of that performance base. But I think it will be important that we stick, keep with that. We're going to need to program that space so that we really realize the benefits. It will be kind of a shame if we lose those trees and end up having spaces that's inactive much of the time. That will end up not having been a very good trade-off. So although the resolution didn't direct us, this group, to reduce the amount of paved space, I think that if you come up with a plan that does reduce some paved space in order to come up with a better tree plan, I think that is fully, fully in the spirit of that resolution. My own view is that wouldn't be, you know, out of bounds with the resolution. Of course, we know this thing, we're going to, everyone follows resolutions to the tee. Absolutely. So again, I just want to thank you all for all your work, and I look forward to new ideas that will come forward tonight. Thank you, Councilor Nodal. Anyone else from the public who wants to speak tonight? Good luck. Thanks. I went back and looked at a city council discussion from September 17. September 17. No. This last September. And Councillor Dain asked about the percent of concrete for grass or plantar tunnels that would be 40% paved. And then she also said the building pathways would flow or no great slope, so accessibility is not a problem. Then she said regarding trees in the park, as many healthy trees will be saved as possible. But then dying trees will be removed and replaced with a species that will survive for a long time. So that's what we heard. That was before the DRB, and that's what the DRB was charged with. Or that's what the decision-making was charged with. So then there was suddenly a change and a lot of trees were going to be, including many healthy trees, were going to be cut down. But that wasn't really what the city council had heard and had part of the minutes of that meeting. So that leaves... So I think that what we came out of the city council with in September was that only the dead and dying trees would be cut down and that is many healthy trees. Now we also had some talk about how to move pathways because of the ADA. And that's as far as the facts have been presented on the ADA. I haven't seen a single slope or a single width presented to this committee. Has anybody gotten a single slope or a width of any walkway in the park? I don't think we have any facts. So someone who's really concerned about the ADA I think it shouldn't be used as a pretext. It should never be abused. It should never be something that people will look back on and say they abused the ADA and did something that will degrade the public confidence in the ADA. We should be really having the facts before this committee. Otherwise I don't think it's fair to make a decision. I don't think it's a legitimate decision if we're making changes in pathways that can cause trees to be cut down as we've seen more or at least one of those pathways. So what are the facts? What are the slopes as they are now? What are the slopes in the proposed plans? Do we really need requirements of the ADA if we change it or are we just doing something that doesn't mean it? What are the rules for the ADA? And I don't think that we've heard about the ADA but I don't think it's being done in a professional legitimate process. At the last meeting we've heard that we don't even know what the slope is going to be on the proposed plan or do we? We don't know. So if we don't know then how do we know we're meeting it? So I think there's a lot of confusion on this. I think it should be done straightforwardly. Let's see a map. Let's see the slope of the paths in the park. Let's see the slope for alternate routes along sidewalks. There are three sidewalks and a church street and there's a path from church street to the park. All of those should have their slope designated and their width designated because those are the two criteria and the widths in both directions. So if we have the facts then we can see both for the existing park and for the proposed park. Then we can see if any of the proposals actually improve things for the ADA or whether we already meet the requirements of the ADA with the existing park. And then we can make proper decisions based on the ADA. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Lees. Anyone else? There's McGrew. Barbara McGrew St. Paul Street. I really wasn't going to say anything tonight, but I will anyway. I can't seem to help myself. First I want to apologize for being late. I went to the basement of City Hall and I never received Councillor Bushor's email either so I must be on the wrong list. Anyway what I want to talk about tonight is cost. My understanding is that the cost of this renovation is going to be about $3 million. I submit that for a third of that, maybe less, you can preserve a beautiful park, fix what's wrong with it, fix the fountain, fix the sidewalks, turn up the compacted soil, push the farmer's market entirely to the periphery so it doesn't happen again. We have performance space. The Jazz Fest performed there for ten days. At noon, all summer long, you have plans for wonderful music there. People enjoy sitting on the grass. They enjoy the shade. I don't understand what the need is for this massive overdue. I think that people will use the park more or every day in the winter, in addition to when there are festivals and things there, is not necessarily worn out. There are people there every day. Maybe all of them are not the people you want, but I can't understand why our wonderful police department can't police less than a square block of park if that's really a problem. So my position still is, the other thing I wanted to say is I went to a focus group on the future of the downtown. One of the things that people really agreed upon in the group I went to is that there's a lot of deferred movements downtown. The sidewalks are pitted badly in a lot of places. Church Street, which is our crown jewel, is going like this, any of the stores. It's unblockable for any of us in the wintertime. Take 2 million of the 3 million and fix the downtown and continue to maintain it. Fix the park, continue to maintain it.  It's a beautiful park. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. McRue. Anyone else from the public who wants to speak to us? All right. I guess that's it. That's it. We'll wrap up the public forum. Close out the public forum. And we will move into the committee discussion with expected vote or votes. So who wants to kick us off? Donna. I want to follow up on something B.J. said and something Jimmy Lee said. How old do you think those crowd bouts do you have a sense? My understanding, they were planted by a bunch of UVM students in the middle of the night. They give you a date. Like an estimate would be maybe 30 years old. Maybe 30 years. So the average lifespan of a crab apple tree is 30 to 40 years. These are mature trees. They don't have that much life left.  And when they're not doing so well, when they get to the hazardous point, we can cut them down and plant something else more strategically located. That's my two cents on the crab apples. I wanted to follow up on something that Jimmy had to say regarding, we did ask for the slope and the width. And I'm not sure where it is in planned documents. If you have that, it would be really helpful to go over that with us. And also, we requested the ADA self-evaluation and transition plan. And an email just came this afternoon. They're working on a transition plan, but it's not completed. And that is required before, well, at least that's what the New England ADA Center told us, that a self-evaluation and a transition plan are required before you start renovations and upgrades. So we were expecting to see that. I mean, without that document, those documents are just, is there a reason why this is all done and approved and those documents aren't completed to inform the project? So, yeah. I mean, to speak to your transition plan request, the design team in kicking off the project, we did review the existing slopes in the park with the survey that was done and acquired the topography, the existing widths. We found that most of the paths, if the slope that goes down the path was adequate for ADA, the cross slope has deteriorated over time and no longer meets the ADA requirements. The sidewalk slabs are heaving, creating more than a quarter inch vertical separation. So the thought process is that with our proposed design, to meet ADA, you need to provide a path from the origin of accessible parking to its destination. The current park, assuming that the cross slopes were corrected under the existing design, only has two paths. Our proposed plan in creating this transition, while it's not written down in a note or a memo, you know, our design discussions and our meetings focused around improving this. And so the proposed plan actually has five. That will meet both slope and cross slope and having it be reconstructed will meet the vertical displacement. So while we don't have a handwritten memo kind of a plan, we did have a lot of design discussions about how to improve accessibility into the park beyond what it currently could be. Can I ask a question? You said that under your new plan, five of the six entrant ways are going to be ADA accessible. Five of the seven, yes. Now there are seven. You have the one that comes between BCA and City Hall Park. Right. And that connection is currently not accessible. No. Why is that not accessible if you can drive a police car through it just out of curiosity? Maybe I'm just very specific. The parks can go all sorts of places. Right. So I think that's relatively, I've walked through it before. There is a, I'm sure there's a dip in it. I think you're thinking that it's very or free, but it does not need to be. Yep. Right in here there's actually a very significant cross slope hump that probably is close to 5%. It's very much not. Definitely against humps. I do not comply. But so just to, so the two entrant, the entrant's ways that we're not going to be ADA compliant at the new Flynn crossing there into Park Lane. Yep. That is not going to be ADA compliant. The slope is greater than 5%. But it's not going to be compliant afterwards. And then the other one is the section of this curved. Is a portion of the diagonal path in the Southwest. And I would just postulate that when you've got a path and you're on the path and you reach a portion that is no longer ADA compliant, you really need the ADA. That could be a problem, even if the rest of it is. So, and as you know, that's the path that we've been advocating some slight modification to its angle so that we could protect three healthy trees on there. And I just want to say one thing about, talking about healthy trees. Everything that we've been talking about saving, the five crab apples and those three, the Zelkova, the red oak and the honey locus is on the top.  Throughout this entire process, when we started to try to bring attention to the fact that there was going to be a massive tree cut over 50% of the trees were going to be cut as part of this plan.  I mean, we heard that all over. And I think that that was an argument that was very, was pushed very hard that all the tree, we didn't know what we were talking about. We weren't tree experts.  Every tree that we're talking about saving now is healthy. We're only talking about healthy trees. We're not advocating the protection of any other tree that is not healthy because we were essentially pushed into that position so that we didn't even feel that we could advocate for trees that were in a fair condition state unless we'd be attacked for supporting trees that were not completely healthy. So that has been our guiding principle throughout this process that we had to look for, identify, and request that literally a handful of healthy trees be protected. So I just want to say going forward, I still feel that, you know, there's been no area in this entire thing where we've said, well, how about these trees? And so I was like, oh, no, we need that for this. Well, how about these trees? No, I'm sorry, pathway here. Oh, these trees, no, that whole area is going to be paved in now. I mean, that's literally been the response that we've gotten for everything, you know? And so as I've said earlier, you know, we have over 700 people following this issue, concerned about this issue. Over 200 of them have expressed their concerns about wanting more trees protected in the park to the city councilors and the mayor. That is not a small vocal minority. That is, you know, and you all know in terms of the types of topics that people turn out for regularly and write about regularly. And Mr. Senville can certainly attest to that for his experience on the DRB, like an unprecedented amount of people coming out. You know, we want to see the administration bend a little as councilor Nodell noted, to make some freaking little, tiny adjustments to this increase of hardscape to 33% of the park to protect eight measly trees.  We gave up our opportunity, our legal opportunity to appeal the DRB decision. We want to compromise. We said that from the very beginning and good Lord, if saving eight trees, you know, is not a compromise, I don't know what is. So we want to continue to try to find a way. I think that councilor Nodell made a very important distinction and that is the resolution as it stands does not prohibit a slight decrease in the hardscape to protect a couple trees. And so, you know, our position is, we can't tell 700 people that we've been working for a year and they've been coming out and speaking and sending emails and guess what, we're going to save two trees and plant two more. I mean, we have essentially our own constituency of people that have put their trust and support in us and have trusted us to come forward and represent this very, what I consider to be a very reasonable request for a $3 million project. So that's all I want to say.  But we're prepared to keep fighting on this issue because we feel like if we come back with such a paltry result, all of those people are going to be furious. They're going to be furious at the process. They're not going to be very happy with us. They're not going to be happy with the City Council.  We're talking about, you know, we've been talking about eight to 12 and we're still kind of being treated like, you know, we're upset, you know, we're upsetting the apple cart by our outrageous and unreasonable requests. So I really hope that we can come together and produce something that we can all walk away and say this was a meaningful process. I don't want people to continue to be jaded and feel that we, even when we went through all this unique process that so many Councilors have said, wow, this could be a really good way to deal with, you know, problems that people in the community want to have a way to do. We get to know each other. We talk. We share opinions and so on. I'd really like to see this be something that we can all, we can all take pride in. Thank you. Any who else from the committee is ready to consult? Well, we could go around all night talking about how we're going to do this, but, you know, until we put something out on the floor, whether we're going to see if we have an agreement or not. So I'd really like to put a motion out now. All right. And I would like to recommend to the City Council modifications from the DRB approval from the City Hall landscape to include options 1B, 3, and 4, which means two additional trees and two existing trees to the plan. And that's the proposal that I would like to put forward to the committee. So that's the one we just heard about? It's the one we just heard about. And so if it doesn't have support, let's find out right away. So I'm putting that out there and would like a second. I think do we need a second on that? Yeah. And I'll put it out there. Anyone has amendments or any other ideas? Okay. So we have a proposal on the table. Councilor Busher. I'd like to raise you. That's why it's out there, Councilor Busher. That's why it's out there. Okay. Yeah. Okay. What do you got for us, Councilor Busher? So I apologize that not everyone here tonight received the email that I drafted today. I sent it to you, Dave. No, I know that. I just, yes. So, and I, last evening, I spent some time with the city arborist and I walked around the park. I just want to frame the conversation. And I looked at the park and I took it in quadrants because that's what I needed to do. And we, and it was really good. It was a very informative and good meeting for me. And I got an appreciation of how he sees the park. And we don't see the world the same way, but I think we have more in common than we have differences. So my goal was to once again, so, you know, there's the, there's the long range plan of this is how it's going to look in 30 years and there's the here and now plan. And I think that we need two plans. I think we need the long range, but I also think we need an interim plan which allows us to adjust to the change in the park. Most people in the room probably know this is not a plan that I feel warm fuzzies about, but having said that, I'm focused on the trees and how, and the new plantings and how the landscaping of the park. So my goal was to figure out what else could be retained. And I was looking more short term, but as I went around, I did identify a few trees that I thought really should not be eliminated at all. One tree that, and I was interested in, I guess President Wright, I do want to know about the life of a crab apple tree. I want to really understand what was just shared with us. So that's a question I want to get back to. But, you know, I looked at, first of all, I looked at that section where the stage is or the proposed stage will be and looked at the crab apples that are going to be saved from termination and those that are going to be wiped out. And I, and listening to what the arborist said about giving trees room to fully mature and grow and I felt that the tree in the center, they're all pretty interesting. I love trees. I like them with and without leaves. I think they're beautiful. They're just incredible. So I just looked at that tree and each one is unique as how they branch out. But I looked at that tree and I felt that I think that there's some discussion about saving this. Now the mayor also, right after the last meeting, you know, looked at that tree but then felt that there were enough barriers around saving that tree that he really doesn't want to move forward with that. And I appreciated that. It was a brief conversation. But I still looked at it and the staging that the expanse of that stage, it's now round or curved and it's going to be rectangular and so it will come close to the roots of that crab apple tree. And so the tree probably, because it's right in the drip line, probably wouldn't survive very long. So it might have a shortened life but it could survive and I guess that's where I'm at. So to me, I would rather give up a little bit of a view and still have that tree because it still really is consistent with the breathability and the growth pattern that the arborist spoke about. And the reason it's being eliminated is because of the stage. And so I think that maybe that could, I'm not proposing to change the concrete, I'm just proposing to say give the tree a chance. It can always be cut down if it doesn't survive. Does everybody understand which tree she's talking about? The one in... I would guess 87, 387. It is outlined in a way. There you go. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate that. So then when I was, so I'm still in that quadrant and then when we looked over to the left-hand side and I'm facing, I'm standing at City Hall. I'm standing at Steps. There was a really beautiful tree which was healthy and it's an American elm. And I asked the arborist why that one was going to go because I couldn't figure that one out at all. And he stated that, well, a lot of that had to do with the, once they're doing the renovations in the park, they're going to also do some that accommodate the Great Streets proposal. And this would be one of that, that this would be sacrificed. And I just was shocked that we would take down a beautiful American elm for the Great Streets proposal. And I'm hoping that there is a way that there can be some creativity so that tree does not go. That was incredibly disturbing to me. And I'm still upset by that. Moving on to the next... Can I just, because I need clarification there. I was told at one point that there would be, there was no trees coming down based on that project, Great Streets. So can I get clarification from somebody if that tree is coming down, solely for Great Streets? We were told it was because of the bike path. So the tree's current is treated along the right of way for the, it's close to the property line. For the construction, for the construction of the wall and the footing that's going to go in the wall, it's basically going to come and impact everything in this area for the tree roots. The design team does not expect or think that the wall could be constructed if the tree was to remain. Because it is just that close and proximity wise to the wall. The wall is on the parcel boundary. Just to be clear, so you're telling me that tree has to go for the design of the park, not because of Great Streets. Clear sidewalk through there. There are other locations throughout the city where Great Streets' concept that we are working on right now takes into account improvements of this type. So we wanted, if this tree was able to remain outside of the park, we could talk about it under Main Street. For this park's design, as it's shown, the tree will not be able to be there and complete the construction as shown. So why were some of us told that it was because of the Great Streets initiative? That was my understanding. That's okay. That's fine, put it out there. As it's currently shown, Perfect. Got the answer. Thank you for being honest. I'm confused. Could you show where the wall is and where the tree is and does the wall have to be continuous? The wall is there for the stormwater ecology of the park. Yep. We're in the committee discussion. So anyways, suffice it to say that that tree is one that I thought should be saved, okay? And I apologize for the information that I thought I was giving you accurate information and it is information that is modified. That's fine. Then next to it is a sugar maple and this tree is not, this tree will be impacted by what's going on. Hang on, I think you're, are you referring to the one, see the yellow circle? See the outline there? Yes, I believe that's the one you're referring to. Was it the large sugar maple that was closest? 964. The one that you identified is 964. It might be helpful to put up the tree status plan just to see these trees. Yeah. So I believe, yeah, I believe you got the outline right. That's the tree health? Is that the tree? And actually I think in what we put together today, the photo of that tree that was taken today, if you want to pull that up. So this tree isn't that healthy, but what I wanted to say was that in my transition plan there was going to be another tree planted, where was that other tree going to be planted? Right there. Close to it, right? And so what I was hoping to do was to allow to give some kind of, to visually in the short term, not eliminate that tree, but to allow the other tree to grow a little bit and then to take that down. That's what we had talked about. The other trees are in too close proximity to the pathway and they're actually in the pathway so they can't be saved. So in that quadrant there was the American Elm which I'm not going to give up on and the sugar maple. That's a Princeton. Is that the Princeton Elm that we're talking about? Okay. Yes. And then the next tree is the next quadrant is the Silver Linden. And you're talking about the smaller of the two which was... Yes. So there are, so College Street, you're facing... Can you put up the tree status plan please? We're facing College Street and there are three trees from College Street that will be retained. And then as you get close to where the fountain is there are the first two trees are going to be cut down and one of them is the Silver Linden and it is a tree that is looks fine health wise I felt that that tree the spacing of it I didn't feel was any different than the other three trees so as far as distancing didn't seem to make a difference but once again it felt like that tree would provide some additional shade that area is pretty because on the other side most of the trees except for one is going to be cut down there is another Silver Linden across from tree 914 That's the photo that was up in the right hand corner which has a root issue and I've been going around this evening looking at roots now and anyways so the Arborist is very concerned about can you point out the first Silver Linden is 914 right which currently lies on the left side of the existing path in the park there's a red oak in this vicinity the next tree is a Silver Linden the tree next closest to it is a home locus to the right of it the second tree she is referring to is a large Silver Linden here I believe it's 915 we have difficulty reading the map when we're out there and that one's a big beautiful tree but there is some concern about the root system which you identified and I think that I would like to have confirmation on that before that tree gets cut down it's a beautiful tree and you're now getting into you're moving from a quadrant that has some adequate foliage to a quadrant, the last quadrant behind the firehouse is going to be pretty much devoid of trees there's one tree that remains we all looked at a number of those trees in this section and there's a crab apple that's going I guess because of the entrance way I don't really understand it but it's going I just kind of said okay but then there were three other trees four trees none of them were stellar trees but it really it may both seem to be the one that was positioned such that it wasn't in anybody's way it would provide some shade and in the interim it could be there until something else was decided I don't know what the plan for the park is but there is there is no trees in this section at all there's none except one close to the building so Sharon how many total trees would you be adding to the plan? Well this added six and can I ask I just want to be clear are all of these ones that are going to be phased out that you were talking about phased out some will be saved so the red maple well the red maple I didn't finish the statement was that when vj was looking at the map he thought that the design and we need confirmation on that the design of where the bathrooms was coming in very close proximity to that tree and that's why I wrote in my email that maybe it could be tweaked so that tree could be saved knowing that I mean I really I know all of the people around the table a lot of them really support this plan but I would like you to look at that quadrant and say why do you think this works because I don't think it works I really don't think that quadrant works at all and I would like to understand why you think it works and what your vision is for that area because there's no staging there I don't know I really don't know so I feel that that area is lacking it's lacking imagination it's lacking trees definitely and I could not respect the arborist he doesn't agree with my email and I want to be up front with that with you on that because he worked really hard to make his recommendation to you all but I am making what I think is a sound recommendation I think that the American Elm certainly I need to figure out what we can do but that tree is majestic and beautiful and I guess I don't get it someone said what the award for the tree city of the USA well maybe not so much anymore but I think that you know really I think that people really need to embrace what they have and if there are beautiful specimens and the arborist has I came to appreciate that DJ has wrapped himself around a few trees in that park and said no and they've stayed and thank you for that and I very much appreciate that but I'm feeling that there's a need to look at these each quadrant understand the functionality of it and understand if you feel like this really meets the spirit of what we want to accomplish and so I am proposing that the committee as a whole consider some aspect of what I'm proposing thank you and one of the last things that you said in your email you might have said this but is a tweaking of the bathroom? well yes because maybe she said there's a bathroom area that would need to be tweaked somehow well yes because I didn't have the plans for that and I couldn't really speak to that from what I could see that's the location of that portable bathroom it's not a porta potty no it's not a porta potty it has plumbing yes a drain sewer pipe I believe there's a drinking fountain there's a drinking fountain on the outside too so as Councillor Nodale said I was trying to stay within the existing pathway and the concrete but I found myself in that quadrant just no opportunity at all except to try to save that one red maple and that did require some modification so these trees how many are phased out over time while new trees are planted because that's what you talked about you wanted to do that with some trees one tree the American Elm was the one I wanted to stay permanently retain the sugar maple 964 was an interim until the other tree took form the silver lindens I wasn't proposing to get rid of those so the maple the center crab apple potentially would go center crab apple, silver maple and the red maple could go it's not a stellar tree once we had some other planting if you've been on a proposal it's like it could, it potentially will or where it is I just want to understand I am not an arborist I am saying that these trees will make the park I think look better in the short term and I feel that based on construction which will potentially impact a couple of these trees I can't say they will be retained long term I'm just being a realist on this thank you I appreciate what you are trying to do and I think maybe I think suggested process to move this forward might be I think some of what you have proposed are ideas that could be considered and we can have pros and cons and we can weigh them in I think several of them are just really not viable and would be so difficult I just think would be a dramatic change would it be we could go through one at a time or we could try to I think some of them just can't be done and we should identify the ones that can't be done would be my choose one of the ones that could be done or start with the ones that could be done yeah so I'm unclear what any of the last three that you raised can be done and could use some help from the professionals about the last three I think they have problems the first three I think are different can you zoom in the north north-west quadrant that actually has those trees in it like the status plan you can see them if we zoom in there and the circle goes around and can you put a dot where the trunk is so there's one that one kisses the sidewalk that one's actually in the sidewalk that's just the difficulty in keeping those you know if we push if we push the sidewalk at all it impacts has kind of ripple effects that's a straight sidewalk though it's not an ADA problem as far as I could tell I mean it's pretty flat so why are you moving that sidewalk then if you just kept it where it was right now it goes that's your pointer I have to go up to see where right now it goes right through here and so why what's the main reason for moving it so to get back you know we moved this one down to get length here so that could be ADA accessible right now that sidewalk comes right through here there's not enough lengths to get down from this elevation here you know if we keep this one it comes right through this area I mean it's this whole thing has been a really big balancing act to get some of the features that were part of the goal of this project so if you start sliding paths around it has a pretty big impact on the relics Jeff could you speak to the last the red maple I think is this one you know the trunk misses the paved area but we're changing grade throughout here most of it does so it clips I mean one thing you know it's one thing to miss it in 2D but we're kind of at the grading of this path the grading of this utilities to go in for that I mean the bathroom could move I suppose but where the other thing to consider you know if you look at where the tree is currently there's no hardscape around it so to kind of identify gentlemen who spoke earlier about replacing sidewalks from those are existing hardscapes it's known that tree roots try not to go under compacted soils with our proposed plan in this area you're changing what is native grass relatively undisturbed in the tree's opinion to be an entirely compacted hardscape it's a very different surface condition than we're placing existing sidewalk in kind without digging into the ground which is what we do with the sidewalks we replace the concrete barely touch the sub base so we're not touching where the tree roots live when you replace the sidewalk in the same streets so construction around that tree doesn't feel it significant so can I ask you a question you could or yes so why Mr. Mayor are there no trees planted in this section why is this quadrant totally devoid of trees Jeff I think you want to speak to the thinking behind this part of the you know from day one we're trying to we're not trying to pack the park full of trees we're trying to give a variety of shaded areas sunny areas in areas that we had more sun in I mean if the committee wanted I could see planting a new tree in this quadrant but I think to try and save that red maple would be really problematic problematic because we're digging down like 17 inches to put paving in so we're putting in 12 inches of base and then there's probably 5 inches of concrete or pavers because they're permeable pavers in this area so it's a thicker sub base section that's needed to support that infrastructure and that surface and that's done roads that way I also think it worked I just said I don't know I mean I do support Jeff's recommendation you know saving any of the trees in this area I don't think that's constructable I mean I don't think there should have to do a very thorough display alright Councilman what do you mean by purposefully versus I would suggest to move along a concept a theory for moving this along is Councilor Busher could offer an amendment you know her choice whether she still thinks after this discussion there should be amendments for the final ones maybe one at a time offer an amendment to add the tree and we can try to have a discussion on each of them and come to a decision about whether to add it to the underlying amendment or not would be my suggestion about how to move forward so okay so it's up to Councilor Busher though do you want to do it one by one I mean that's going to take some time and as I said we're nine o'clock okay so I'm going to move to amend Council Hartnett's motion by adding back the center crab apple just the center crab? well I'm doing one by one but you were alright and anything more on that I made my statement about it I don't think I need to say anything else what's the counter just a very quick point can you bring up the photo again of the view of the city hall just so people know what they're voting on just quickly on this I just want to make sure to be clear what they're saying so can you also show which ones are coming out the other two on each side definitely will improve it I think it's a major improvement over keeping all six but there still will be an impact okay so councilor busher has that tree I think we do have to move we have another proposal coming and it's nine o'clock unless there's anything else said on this let's have a vote on it who is in favor of retaining this tree I just want to ask a question about the vote does that mean if you vote for that then it doesn't we want tree at a time who is in favor of retaining this tree in the plan opposed okay so we have a five to two vote to retain that tree in the plan councilor busher alright the second tree that I'm going to ask to retain is the sugar maple tree nine six four my understanding was that that was not on a path or in a path it was it's acknowledging that this tree has a short life and it is in close proximity to where another tree will be planted and this becomes even more important if indeed I do want to say this if indeed the American Elm can't be saved I have a question on that so councilor busher is saying this would be saving this tree for maybe five to ten we don't know exactly what you're saying I just want to make sure this is accurate she is saying that this tree was going to be eliminated because of its health is that correct and there's no other reason that it was going to be eliminated I would say yes this tree is in a severe decline but has no impact on the project okay and it's not currently being saved under our my proposal I just want to make sure I'm right with this a severe decline mean that what does that mean in terms of what she is saying could it be around similar to what it is for a few years while other tree matures there are a couple of other sugar maples in the park that are a good indicator of what this tree is going to look like over the next few years you can see a lot of deadwood in the crown that really needs to come out probably this fall because that deadwood will become a public hazard next year I would expect another anywhere from five to ten percent of that crown to be dead after another year that's the point it's at that point and it's decline so we can whittle away at that tree that crown is already thin and it's going to become a skeleton of its former self if that is the look that this group is looking for when this park is complete vote to save it for the short term that's the way it looks right now my concerns about this tree was if we're going to plant another new tree in close proximity a couple of things this tree after the fact once the park is built we'd have to go in and remove it it could be done but it'd be kind of dicey we'd have to get equipment in there we would want to excavate a large portion of the root system of that tree to maybe make a place in the future to be able to plant we wouldn't want to leave that whole root system so now we're going to have quite a large area after the park is done it's going to be disrupted from a practical standpoint in my opinion doesn't make a lot of sense and potentially if the new tree close by has some time to grow we're potentially impacting that newly planted tree when we go in there to do the work to remove it those are the kinds of things that I shared with your councillor during our meeting last night correct? okay so that's out there yeah go ahead and make questions about that I don't ever hear you talking about remediation it seems like your strategy is like something's wrong with it cut it down we have equipment supposedly to aerate roots what is your diagnosis of this tree and why it cannot be treated in any way to make it healthier I know from years of experience in training that this particular tree with a couple of the other sugar maples in the park and a few of the others is beyond the point of remediation I'm certain of that I've had training as I said in another meeting the company that I worked for for three years trying to come in here patented that process they researched it over a five year period on multiple sites and their training I received in implementing that process which I did on many properties during my three years with them training was focused on being able to make that determination of when it was too late I'm just asking for specific diagnostics what's the problem the tree has girdling root issues that's what we're getting at there's a total lack of root flare there's some signs of some root rot decay in it clearly the crown has been declining I saw a picture of Google Earth image, street image 2017 from last year and it had less decline than that so it's just hit that point our guy said it was in poor condition should be removed so again it's up to this group to decide if that's the approach you want to take I'll just speak to it I cannot vote in favor of keeping this tree based on what I said last week I'd like to make some compromise I'd like to add some trees I'm not going to give up on that but I'm not going to make a compromise to save a bad tree that should go I think that's a bad compromise actually all the way around in this particular case I would not vote to save this tree I don't know but we're going to take it up right now Councillor Bush are you got anything else on this one? nope I just want one last point so you're the person that you had a look at this agreed that it should go was there any thought about whether it should go now or it could be as it was said it's going to I think you said 5-10% in the next year yeah I mean it's hard I mean it's a gas to some degree it's not in the way we were more focused on saving healthy trees and that wasn't a healthy one so it wasn't one that we identified I mean the question here would be whether it's saved for a period of time where another tree takes its place so okay so all those in favor of keeping this tree in the plan on I guess this one Councillor Bush is on a temporary basis oh yeah this was a temporary one yeah our concern is that we don't want to like I said we were forced into the position that we take now is that we're saving healthy trees because we were accused of trying to save my healthy trees and because our guy said it was poor we would we want trees and we have also subscribed to the idea why are we not talking more about remediation like you're not in perfect health you're out of here babe and we feel that there's an entire business about remediation and caring for trees aerating roots etc so we're not against this concept we just don't want a tree that we know is in poor condition that's going to come down being counted as something that we saved because we've been charged with trying to protect trees so that's I applaud Councillor Bush's concern and the time that she's taken and we all agree with it her suggestion about how can we look to stagger more of these trees so we don't get this complete cut down so I don't think that we would be against saving it but it doesn't work against the total that we're trying to get to because we've made this firm commitment not be criticized as ninnies who are trying to protect healthy trees sorry that's what we dealt with already so all those in favor of keeping this tree in the plan on a temporary basis as one of the ones to I'm voting I think that we would vote in support of that but like I said we're trying to get to at least eight healthy trees so we have no problem in supporting this it's your call because when you bring up your proposal it has to be weighed in different ways obviously what's the effect on the plan I mean that's what I don't know what your proposal is so that's up to you so who's in favor of this tree so that one stays in on a phased in basis that one's phased phased out it's staying on a phased in basis alright what's your next one Councillor the Silver Linden across from the Silver Maple which is the beautiful tree 914 now that's the one so when we looked at this one of them was in close proximity to the path it wasn't in the path so I wanted once again I want to get because there was a controversy about where it's in close proximity to the path, correct when we, when you and I looked at this together and you said how come we can't save this tree I just showed you where that tree is located in relation to the path under the current design and you can see there that it's right on the very edge of it on the western edge of it but there's grass around it and the only thing that's being modified is the path the rest of it is not going to be hard pack it's going to be the grass this is a new path the existing path is here so the tree would have avoided creating roots in this area so all of its roots while it may pass straight underneath the sidewalk are most likely in this space because this was not impervious today and why can't that path be slightly I mean it's straight it's flat it's not going to change the ADA why can't that be slightly modified or to to save that tree or the other one beside it why, what was the problem with I'm not sure where that path goes where does it go to the fountain to the whatever it is it goes to city hall it is one of the radiating paths I get that I'm not taking the pathway I'm just trying to understand why the but it doesn't connect to another path but it goes through that fountain or something on the side of the fountain it goes to the side of the fountain like that we wanted to create more of an open space here so we shifted that path over it still accommodates the radiating path but it terminates here and sort of here and it also doesn't go straight through am I missing something there's nothing is it underneath what is that what is that cement gate what is that brown oval what's that ok so it continues in a different material oh it does it is still a clear path without is that the fountain though is that what the fountain is in this water where so the people are going to walk right past right now from a design perspective I can tell why the designers don't want to do this is because they don't want to mess up the symmetry that you're seeing from above in other words you can walk through if you can imagine cutting and pasting that path ok and tilting it just slightly up to the straight up at that path so it had a slightly different angle it could save them but they don't want to do it because even though it's just suggested when you get into the gray area they want their path to swoop perfectly like that so they don't want to right well it would still be a radiating path it could still be just moved you know moved up by some from that corner you know there's um I mean slightly slightly modify the angle but then the designers wouldn't like it because they wouldn't have their complete I would take the corner end and tilt it up a little bit slightly to the top I mean you guys are all about the imaginative space have another little imaginative space over there you know orient that slightly so it still comes down and meets roughly almost same area of that area I know why you don't want to do it um well I don't think it's someone gives me a pointer um I mean this is you know it's I don't think it's that complicated I don't think it's that complicated thank you all right you know so instead of standing here if it started slightly here and had a you know went along this line it would it would provide enough of a birth I would think if the existing path is here there's another tree on the north side that you'd impact what's wrong with the current path is the current path ADA accessible no it's just that the crossover it doesn't fit with the design okay all right so the cross slope is so vj I'm sorry for it I just need one question one clarification based on our conversation this was not both of those trees were not in the path one was in close proximity the other one you had issues with because of the root system now I'm looking at those two trees both in the path one is on the very outside edge yes for this to the left and the other one is and the one that you have the girdling issue with is the one that's in the path is the one to the right to the right there's a photo of that too and I've pointed it out that one that that higher one there to the yes I believe so no we need to give you the pointer so if I'm on college street it was the one on the right hand side not the one on the left hand side that you had the issue with this tree here if you can zoom that out okay so this this silver linden currently resides east of the existing path and this is the base of the tree and my concern on this tree is that what would be the north side of it north slightly north east side of it there's actually an indentation in the base of the tree with a swelling above it and that indicates to me that there's a severe girdling root on that side of the tree what scares me about this tree is that I have seen trees actually fail right at that just snap off at the base so VJ is that the one that's in the path that's what I'm trying to ask it's this tree right here it's the one right in the path okay I'm going to let go of that one because yes because I didn't realize when I was walking around that it was in the path okay so that one's gone but that's 915 914 which is the smaller one which is in close proximity I'm still going to move to retain this one it's alright I'm okay with the challenge can you give me just a little bit more on that so it's a silver linden it's a beautiful tree actually the one across the one that is in the path is a big beautiful tree but it is a tree that once again I was hoping that we could retain that this would be once again for a period of time for about 10 years or so which one are you talking about I want to clarify now looking at this map I think there's a little confusion here can we go back to which map are you showing here I think it's the tree health tree health the tree health is called so this is actually the first silver linden the smaller of the two that currently resides at the west side of the existing path it's close to the center right tree number 9-11 okay 9-11 that's the one Sharon that you and I looked at 9-10 I believe is a honey locus okay so in that shown on this plan this is the rain garden here and that is right on the very edge of the rain garden I think she's talking about 9-14 no no no she was talking I was with her she was talking about 9-11 and 9-14 because you and I Sharon discuss 9-11 and I just pointed out to you that as it stands right now the crown of 9-11 the silver linden is overlapping and crowding out the crown of the adjacent honey locus remember how we talked about that and I just share with you my thought that I would favor you know not even taken into account its proximity to this rain garden I would favor removing this tree for the long-term growth and development of the honey locus which we're seeing considerable dieback on the honey locus down on this path if you remember because of the crowding and it's already encroaching on the crown of this silver maple so that was just what I pointed out to you the 9-16 or 9 the one across from it the one that has the girdling is 9-14 which lies on the path and then further along is a large little leaf linden if you remember when we stood at that path looking towards this corner there were three trees to the right of the existing path to the east and I told you that the two in closest proximity to the path the existing path were slated for removal under this current plan and that the larger linden here it was slightly further east was staying so I wrote down what numbers you gave me yeah we were confused on the numbers so where are we sharing well I need to understand I still wanted to so the 9-14 one is still the one that has the girdling and the root and it's going to be in the middle of the path correct it's on the edge of the path it's on this edge of the path so 9-14 is on the edge and 9-11 is okay and 9-11 is close to the rain is on the edge of the excavation so I think you were about to say you were letting go of one of them Sharon yeah but I'm not going to now I'm sorry but I'm going to I'm going to move this as a I have a question on 9-14 9-11 is the silver the silver linden and 9-14 is another silver linden it is the one that has the root system problem which I thought you needed to further evaluate I thought you knew that there was a problem but you weren't sure about the extent of the problem and what was shared with me was because of the trees that are currently in the park they've buffered that tree from the weather the weather that comes from the lake and if indeed there is that root problem that's why we haven't had any problems with it these are phase outs okay Councillor Hardnett particularly 9-14 trees 9-14 yes from your standpoint of view impossible it's near the path and you'll know that won't you when you do it or no it's really hard to say but you could find during construction you could find where the roots are but knowing what we do know about tree growth under impervious areas the roots are probably not under the existing sidewalk they're probably right where we're putting the new path and if there's root issues with the tree it could be constructed around but I would not bet anything on keeping it for a long term more than a year or two how far are we along with her only two more other trees hang on a minute so any of your proposals the same just yes or no yes they are all of them are there some different 9-15 9-15 was one it was a healthy tree and it was if the path was left in its current location so there's only one tree other than the one she's saying that you have to your proposal no in that area I'm asking in general I think other than what she said helps me if I'm going to look to try to come got you Sharon you have this that you're doing these two as a I'll do 9-11 I'm going to move 9-11 and what's the different issue between 9-11 and 9-14 rain area and it's closer to one of the trees that the arborist feels would benefit from having more space so we're getting rid of that tree to save another tree we're not getting rid of this well he proposed to I hear you I got you so at any time they will all live at any time if a tree is if we decide a tree is going to be saved temporarily and you start doing the park or you move forward just like you would if we weren't doing a redesign of the park if you found out that the tree in a year from now was got to go you come and tell us hey this thing has gone backwards for us faster than we think it's got to go I mean right yeah we make those calls every day on the streets of Burlington it's part of managing trees in an urban environment but I still just want to ask and I keep not hearing an answer to this we have aeration equipment why are we not doing that now why are we not double checking and really making sure how extensive girdling issue it is or if it can be remediated which trees would you have saved I will have a full remediation plan in place once we can come to a final decision on what's staying we can go in and do some exploratory root caller excavations but I can live with that okay and there's also a little leafland in that area yeah and that one's also healthy but going okay we got to get back to we got to get back to dealing with this in front of us because we're winding toward 930 now Mr. last words on this before we vote it was 9-11 it was the only one that I moved forward you're not moving the other one now I didn't say that I just said I was moving 9-11 but I'll probably let the other one go okay so who wants to vote to retain 9-11 so this is a phased out one 9-11 is the silver linden which in the current plan is part of the root zone would be within the excavation of what would need to happen to the swing garden so it's going to lose a big chunk of its roots is what you're saying 50% is it going to be unstable afterwards you think it will remain standing for a while you'll assess that in the field if you decide it's unstable President's rights just acknowledge you may make a decision in the field to take it down this tree will do everything we can do to retain it but there's I can tell you there are no guarantees I think it's understood and if you come back and say hey this tree is I do think he's already told us though I think that this is a tree that he's had major concerns with from the very beginning no that's 9-14 okay so 9-11 right I'm not going to move 9-14 who is in favor of retaining 9-11 as a phased out acknowledging that it may go if Tharbris comes back so you're not doing 9-14 I'm not going to what do you have left I'm going to move to retain the red maple if indeed the bathroom can be and with the fountain can be modified I thought there was some discussion may I be able to be modified can I just this is a it's going to take major modifications to design to save this it's a tree that's in bad shape it's a mistake to do this if we want to quickly look at let's not go further this is a this will not work if the committee wants to what was acknowledged before is you could say we want to put a new tree there and we could design around that something that you could send the design team to go do I will modify my motion to request that a new tree of adequate size be planted somewhere in this quadrant okay so there's a motion to do that instead of retaining the tree all those in favor of that please raise your hands we have a unanimous vote there will be a new tree okay the last thing is that I am going to request that that the American Elm that there be an effort to retain the American Elm in this design I know that which one is that this is tree the wall the one that we thought was the gray street initiative I am going to ask that that this be looked at and that there be a sincere effort in looking at if indeed that tree can be retained I understand about the retaining wall I understand about the storm water I really do understand I mean I have a greater appreciation for the park and what everyone is trying to accomplish but I also have a really great appreciation for this tree okay so for the record you're not making I am moving that there would be a concentrated effort I mean a real effort to retain the American Elm in this design so you're asking that it be reexamined you're not making a motion that it be saved well I want it to be saved it is a motion to save we will make best efforts to save it during construction well do we need a vote can we just say that we will make the best effort to the mayor and I just spoke about it and he so could I offer amendment to this a little better suggestion then I think this should be separate from the other motions that you have I think this should be a totally separate motion on this particular tree oh okay because we are modifying your amendment yeah is what I am saying I would like it to be overkeep or anything like that I'm fine we haven't agreed with the mayor but I'm going to make that as a form of motion no that's fine it's not going to be just it's going to be in writing here okay so there's a motion state what the motion is Sharon she's waiting on her motion for now councilor Hartnett wants a vote on his amended motion so we can have that set and then councilor Busher wants to bring this as a separate amendment okay motion with the amendments that have passed that you which was state the ones that have well the crab apple tree the yes the excuse me the sugar maple which was 964 the silver linden which was 911 and a new planting for where the red in the quadrant that occupied the red maple which was 932 okay so everybody have that in terms of minutes and everything else she didn't move that one okay so so you're all set with that so all those in favor of the Hartnett motion as amended by the changes that you were just mentioned by councilor Busher okay I'm pretty confused now we were going to try to up the any you're still you're still that's why I'm holding off on voting on you're going to come back after with a separate one and Sharon's going to do her thing separately we're voting on this and then you can add to it but it includes all of those trees that we talked about this includes all of the trees the four or five depending on your how you're counting trees that have been modified or added since the DRB and then it includes includes includes yeah that's why I wanted to make it clear okay so it's 975 965 uh 45 911 and we know which ones are temporary phased in as it phased out okay so Dave we're voting all those so that's hard because we're you may agree with two but not the other two well you've already voted on them individually right this is sort of a vote can you live with everything so far which I think is sort of useful from my perspective you haven't done any an alterable damage you can vote against it so that's it that's we're voting on that as amended so and we need to move forward it's getting late here folks so everybody in favor of this amended proposal recognizing there's other motions to come please raise your hand we have a unanimous vote on that okay so so can we before we go any further yes can I have a total number of trees now that we've done this that we since the DRB board just so we can stay on top of things Laura can you walk us through that Laura eight now that's not that's not that starts since this process started this process okay we need to keep moving here Councillor Busher no we've got to go to Councillor Busher I would like to move that that in the upgrade of the park that a every effort will be made to retain and preserve the American Elm which is tree nine sixty nine nine seventy excuse me okay it will be a good faith efforts this is for the yes if it's if the motion is a good faith effort I think that's something that we could live with understanding their details that we don't haven't fully looked at haven't fully analyzed it may not work if it's every effort I think that is too broad and requires too much but if it's a good faith effort to do it we can live with that okay I want to you cut your finger I'll cut mine I've got to become blood brothers but can I just speak to that real quick I'm in favor of this good faith effort and I'm so but what I'm saying is is that we have one expert here who's a tree expert and we have the people doing it I don't want experts coming in from Wyoming and California and everybody else saying this is we're putting the faith within this group here tonight to save this tree and if we hear from the people that are doing this project that they've made a good faith effort I want it to be a done deal the mayor has agreed to this language right and I just want to give you a little more information on this particular tree this is an American element of variety called Princeton it was a selection that was made many years ago when Dutch Elm disease came along and it was thought for many years to have really good resistance to Dutch Elm disease in recent years I have personally observed that that is not the case Warren Spinner was it last summer or the summer before when I was working for this other company gave me a sample of a tree a Princeton Elm that was down by Waterfront Park that died that I sent to a diagnostic lab and confirmed that it had died of Dutch Elm disease they are susceptible to Dutch Elm disease I've seen several others throughout Chittenden County and the state of Vermont there's one on Shelburne Museum property there was one in South Meadow off of Pine Street that died of Dutch Elm disease so I just want you to be aware of that when you add to it if you're the Elm bark beetle which transfers that fungus associated with Dutch Elm disease stress trees so if we attempt to do some construction around here put this tree under VGA I just don't want to go too far with this because we have a motion here and I think it's sort of like I know I get it but you're making the case that maybe we need to be made later so let's vote on the motion that Councillor Bushard has the best faith good faith effort to try to save this all in favor please say aye raise your hands okay okay alright you're done right you're done you're done okay we need to move to Donna and Monique and are you moving these as one tree at a time or as a group or what are you doing okay but before you start are any of the trees that you're going to talk about ones that we've already agreed to yes we don't need to rediscuss no we don't we don't need to go do those don't include anything that we've already passed we don't need to be redundant so we focused on healthy trees and there are 27 trees slated to be cotton of those 27 trees 14 are healthy we consider healthy our guy that did the tree assessment he just used three categories he used good, fair to poor and poor VJ used more categories and we considered the way VJ categorized his trees anything that was fair to good we considered that a healthy tree so so we focused on 14 trees that we knew were healthy and we were hoping to save 10 of those five of them are the crab apples the city's already given two we just voted on another one that Sharon added we'd like to add two more crab apples right in front of City Hall Park steps they are tree number we'll give you the numbers so so it would be 945 and 943 945 is the one we're already 942 it's 942 and 976 okay 975 976 I think you said 942 976 and 942 there's ones on either side of the center one so that would be six crab apples because one was already retained at the DRB okay got that so that we have five more trees that we want to focus on actually two of them are in the northwest corner one of them was tree number 915 that you let go of it's a healthy tree and so we're like we want to save that tree we believe that you would have to have a design change to the location of the path and however you want to do it doesn't however you'd want to move the path around doesn't matter to us but you know there is a current path there that tree currently exists so 915 it's a little leaf blended the other tree in that northwest corner was 912 it's a red oak it's a healthy tree it is right in this area here and if you could put up the tree status or the tree health yeah either the tree something that shows the existing paths how about the other one that the tree health one okay yeah so it is this tree right here this is a red the red oak it actually is on you know so there's the rain garden is here and at the DRB meeting they save this big silver maple and this is on the other end of that rain garden and this little tree right here is the one 911 that you wanted to retain so it would entail some modification to the rain garden 911 was no 912 would involve a lot more than that I'm just saying 911 is one we just 912 is a healthy red red oak both 912 and 915 you acknowledge 915 required some kind of a modification to both of those would? 912 would take a major redesign so maybe we can go back and explain that let me just finish the let's put the whole thing out there and then we'll so there's two trees on this 915 and 912 two trees in the northwest corner and then over in the southwest corner we are looking at these three trees right here and they are 958, 957 and 956 958 is a Zelkova 957 is a red oak and 956 is a honey locus our guy actually our master said all three of these were healthy VJ has one that was healthy and the other two were in fair and we consider fair to be anything from fair above to be a healthy tree so that was it five trees three here and two over here and the crab I was going to say I got seven there were like five crab apples and five more right now you are looking at two the other two crab apples plus 915 and 912 and then the three in the southwest corner and do those also involve a major redesign I don't know if you would call it major or what so that's out there so let's start hearing the others can I make a comment I think the design team would tell you that none of those are viable options they are going to tell you that they are not because once again they are in the way of the path and my position has been considering that a third of the path is going to be paved that there is this complete major redesign based on the design aesthetics of this team that just happened to run over all these healthy trees that we are trying to save and that's why I would like to ask for a softening on the position of the little quote unquote performance area in front of the crab apple trees I think that we could reach a compromise with Sharon's interesting things that she's brought up about the whole idea about planting an additional tree there and then trying to do a companion tree while that maple comes back my personal position would be to save all the crab apples make a slight adjustment to that corner and I just want to say as if it isn't obvious in the new plan that is a 360 degree huge performance base right there well it's okay we can throw it up there it's a very large there's no fountain breaking it up when the jets are turned off it's a big flat open surface there that is a very good performance base that's what it's for and the additional park lane if anybody would like to make a wager for me about how often BCA decides to use that area for their own events I'm quite sure that I would win that it would be a majority of the time so in other words I really think that with the oval which obviously can serve as a performance space with movable chairs and all the things that we've talked about that entire quadrant in front of the BCA being completely paved over that you know and we can't change any of the paths and everything's too close to the to the rain guard and you can't do this and you can't do that that the one thing that I would ask that we could ask for design wise is to keep that little amphitheater there with the crab apple trees for their natural life stop dissing them they're just a little bunch a little grove of trees we're going to see so much of a clearing of the rest of the place that that would protecting those crab apple trees with whatever we can combine those two things we can all go home and be happy I mean I really think that that is a very small concession that area isn't even going to be ADA compliant anyway sharing suggestions that she's thoughtfully tried to think about succession and how best to do that and adding that one more tree there in that area that's in front of the BCA that's going to be all paved over and obviously used for art markets and things like that that if we could just get a concession on leaving the little amphitheater trying to work with sprucing it up we can put mulch under the trees and there are quite a few creative things that we could do to keep that people love that little area you know if they're not going to live that much longer everybody who doesn't like them can look forward to the day that they die but until then can't we please do something that keeps a little bit of continuity from the park how it is now in the face of all these other dramatic changes and if we were to do that we could combine those two things I certainly would be able to go happy go home happy I think that we would be keep the park green would be able to communicate to its constituents that this is a hard hammered out thing and the concessions wouldn't just all be on our side that there'd be some concession on the part of the actual design for all the other things that are being removed because they're you know unfortunately were drawn they just happened to be living out of the past were drawn and you know that would be a small concession to the design retain the balance of the past retain the rain garden and really actually not affect pretty much the entire plan in any other way than just keeping that one amphitheater not turning it into a square okay so let I don't know if you've noticed okay so much is that yeah that was just my comment okay so let's hear the other side on the three different proposals which is the two crab apples 942-976 915-912 and then the three in the southwest corner 58-57 and 956 who's gonna who's gonna handle the other side you wanna do it Mr. Mayor listen when the night started the the statement was if we can find a way to save eight trees we're gonna be satisfied we're now up to what is it Laura? 9, 10 8 plus the elm you just added was 8 before the elm yes so and that is not something that we keep the park green like I said we acquiesced early on we were told it was gonna be a bike path we were told it was great streets so we never argued for the protection we felt that there was just not a chance so to finish my statement we're up to we said started said let's get to eight and we can all go home happy we've added a ninth that we're trying to add I guess I think the starting point from the conversation frankly I don't think was fair or appropriate to say nothing in the history of compromise and accommodation that happened before this committee was formed mattered and that the city has been in good faith working listening trying to add back trees and if you add just since the start of the DRB process there's another there's another force that gets you to 12 if you go back to fall of 2016 when keep it green began raising serious concerns about the trees there are another at least five maybe your trees right around city hall park the silver maple so you're up to 17 trees that since the start of these concerns being raised and each time something is added it said nothing's being done here we're not being listened to we're not being accommodated and it's just not it's just not right and we've had a good process around these gone through it carefully and certainly this is not something I voted against most of those changes but I can live with them I think we start adding the additional ones that are proposed we're really doing damage to this plan and I think we start to have to ask yourself whether it's whether it's really worth continuing to go forward with this project it starts to really cut you're not just cutting fat anymore you're way past that you're not just cutting muscle you're cutting into the bone of this design and we had an explicit vote at the council do we want redesign and the council the majority of the council was contested point the majority of the council said no we don't want a redesign we want to see with this design can trees be added that's what we've done in good faith through this process we've made a lot of progress I think we should let's have an up or down vote on all of the remaining modifications that are being proposed here let's have one more vote well I would like to hear I mean I know what the two issue on the two crab apples is obviously that's about the space there well if you want me to make the other argument the issue of the two crab apples very much impacts this area that as I said at the outside I'm not going to repeat that statement unless you want me to present it right but I think it's an important space today it's not in great shape today it's not a love part of the park today it's not a well used part of the park it will be vastly improved if we make these changes the path that we were talking about in the west southern quadrant we in the first meeting had extensive discussion to do what is being proposed here would not just negatively impact ADA would have a host of other negative impacts on this design that we can bring out those slides and go through them again it's that is a bad idea and we should not do that the 9 11, the 9 12, the red oak there I thought that was interesting when we were in the field I made the team go back and look carefully at this you would have to very much redesign that area you're cutting out on one side of that you're cutting out the roots to put in the hardscape on the other side of the core you're cutting out the roots to put in the drainage there's nothing left to get something left there you would have to have a very substantial redesign I don't think we should do that we've talked about 914, 915 already I just don't think any of these additional ones being proposed are close to viable without serious compromise without serious undermining 912 would require major redesign it would require basically that entire all the root system is being ripped out by the construction right here so you would have to pull it back on both sides quite dramatically I think you're talking about totally redesigning that area 915, same thing or not as 915 is in the middle of the path you would have to relocate the path and it sounds easy it looks easy when you're just sort of looking it from here to actual relocation every it is not simple relocation of any path there's no simple relocation that doesn't start to impact something else there unless you're going to keep the exact same path which is deeply problematic there's not going to be a way to save all those trees those trees aren't bad health fair health fair health so I don't know any questions I want to say one thing first it's up to you who are making the motion whether you want to do this in one vote or not you can do it all in one vote as the mayor suggested or you can do three votes you can vote on the two crab apples then the two trees and then the final three that's up to you you're making the motion you make the decision but Monique did you want to speak before well I did I just wanted to respond to what the mayor said and the things that we have you know I don't know if you heard me but we you know we are looking for Bush's suggestions because we think you know it's it's wise and I like the peering of the idea of her trees you know we were trying to get to eight trees existing trees existing you know and like I said we didn't include the Princeton Elm we're not throwing down the gauntlet here about the southwest corner we haven't even said anything about that and that was the three perfectly healthy trees that we were hoping that the that path could be adjusted slightly so you know we got shot we shot down on that you know we can't do this here we can't do this there you know the one place where they can't you know it can't be said that you're just ripping apart the whole design and ruining everything for everybody is protecting that crab apple grove and that you know and I heard well you know people are using it for all sorts of things and they're like well then it's not being used because it's not good enough so you've made both statements Mr. Mayor in the same evening and I have been there I have attended things there it's a very small little area certainly if people want to do events in the park from this point on there's certainly going to be a great deal of additional space in which to do things so I don't don't agree that keep the park green is not coming here and saying you've got a massive redesign we just backed off of every single thing that we've raised since we got here we had to back off on the rain garden we had to back off on the southwest corner now we got to back off on the other corner and you know everything else is paved and we're trying to protect this little grove of crab apple trees that everybody attests are healthy and they may not you know live for another you know 10 or 15 years and if one is sick it can it can be cut but now it's because oh that little tiny amphitheater is like such a crucial part of the design everything is a crucial part of this design and this is like the most miniscule modification that could be made where we can we can exist protect some existing trees in that area where there's not going to be hardly any shade and so I don't I don't feel like it was a fair characterization of that as far as of trees that are obscuring you know the view of city hall park I mean I mean of the city hall building I mean it's not like we can't see the building from the other side it's not like you can't walk around the park and see the building I mean if you really want to see the building why don't we just cut down every single tree and then you'll definitely be able to see it so I think that that is kind of a specious argument and also those red maples that are all that are all rimming the building we happen to know that none of those buildings are in condition and they are going to be going to come down and then they will not be blocking the building at all from that side so when they come down you'll really be able to see the building so I just I you know I just think that we have been reasonable we've been eminently reasonable and you know we we could you know if nobody wants to give which is what I'm feeling you know then we are going to you know be in a bad place and it's embarrassing for all of us and certainly very disappointing for us our legal right to appeal the decision and having all this public outcry to you know for not would just be awful so I think that we've been extremely flexible we've backed off from several things when we were told it can't be done because the path can't be changed and so if there's you know the attitude is that the path can be changed you know we move the rain garden over slightly to protect the silver maple which I'm not the least bit convinced will not be harmed by that because of its strip line you know and I'm talking about a little a little grove of crabapple trees that are probably not you know that much longer for this world but a lot of people really like those trees so that's I'm just saying I'm we're trying to come to compromise I don't think it's fair to characterize that you know somehow we've been shooting down all suggestions I think it's actually been to the converse is taking place. Thanks Monique so you you what I need is you need to tell me how you want to vote do you want to do one vote as mayor suggested do you want to do three votes can I just okay can I clarify something for the let's go to go to you after sharing one to clarify so the little amphitheater area that is semi-circular we could you know we wouldn't get the rectangle but we could repave that up higher at the elevation of Park Lane and we could build it in a way that when the crabapples die we square it off and we grade that mound off so I mean I think no I know I'm just saying that the amphitheater doesn't have to remain there if the crabapples remain we can make it more accessible by making it all flush and we could look at potentially is there a way to square it off I just wanted to throw that out there thanks thanks for that clarification but yeah I mean the tent won't fit until the crabapples go okay okay thank you for the clarification councillor busher I have a question for the arborist go ahead so the three trees nine fifty six fifty seven and fifty eight are all in the on the in the path in the new path correct they're all really in the path they're not in okay so my question for the arborist is when you're talking about new plantings is there was there a consideration of planting there or no was there a reason not to do that was that to be open we propose two trees you have two where sorry I'm getting tired I apologize I just want to okay those two trees are going to be okay all right so those are the are those two of the trees that were they're not the four trees after the DRB those are part of the in the DRB process the red one is new from this process well it's the relocation of another tree as I'm sorry I remember that now all right okay thank you councillor busher heading toward ten so Donna and Monique you want to do three separate votes do you mind if I do the southwest corner trees first vote I think we've had ample discussion on them if everybody agrees so the southwest corner trees 958 5756 all those in favor of retraining those trees please raise your hands I was opposed like a trader I don't really want it but they're in the path and I let it go so so that one's voted down five to two 915 and 912 together I think we've had again ample discussion all those in favor wait a minute is that the crab apples no that's not the crab apples no I got those I got them I'm sorry 912 is the all those in favor of retaining those two please raise your hands and opposed that fails five to two now the final one is the two crab apples all those in favor of before we vote on that could I ask you go ahead explain to me what you were just talking about over here so the semicircular amphitheater is sunken down below the sidewalk by the steps of city hall I was just pointing out that we could potentially look at a way of phasing in the square or the rectangle by repaving and elevating getting rid of the sunken part but having it shaped as can I have a pointer so basically you can see there you go it's a nice smooth curve so we could pave that area with this and have this whole area redone with infrastructure electric and cable and stuff in there and then there's a mound that these three crab apples sit on that is higher than this elevation so when those do fail whenever they fail we could regrade this area and square this off potentially I mean we'd have to look at how it would work I just wanted to make that councilman heard it so how should this be phrased when I'm talking about really trying to retain that grove we were losing two of them already of the eight existing ones and so that's what my consideration is that that little grove of now that would be five with the one that was already going to remain for a total of six I think if the vote passes that we will at least for the time being they would be retained so that's the potential to make the change that was talked about and as you said they will die off at some point and then it could probably be changed so we're adding two more crab apples if this passed it would be all six right we've already saved okay so I think we're ready all those in favor of this proposal to save the additional crab apple trees please raise your hands okay we'll close that fails four to three okay I think that's that's it motion to adjourn can I say something just no I can't no we're closed do we have to what what was the question though do we have to what motion to adjourn we've already had to vote on Dave's we had separate votes here okay adjourn motion to adjourn seconded by Sposher all those in favor aye we're adjourned