[00:20:49] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: flagged by the automatic checks · 00:20:49–00:20:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:20:54] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:20:54] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:20:56] Speaker 2
Sometimes
[00:20:57] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:20:56–00:20:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:20:57] Speaker 2
pointed
[00:20:58] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
at it. Yeah, you pointed at it. I think we missed the first 10, 15 minutes of the meeting.
[00:21:08] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:08–00:21:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:11] Speaker 2
6.03 to, yeah, just a couple of seconds ago.
[00:21:14] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:21:14–00:21:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:15] Speaker 2
at shotgunning?
[00:21:18] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
‸ Let's go back.
[00:21:20] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:20–00:21:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:24] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
Like
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:21:24–00:21:25 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:21:25] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
you just chucked an
[00:21:26] Speaker 2
energy.
[00:21:32] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:10]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:32–00:21:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:42] Speaker 4
22 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the large-scale commercial mixed-use building on certain properties within the downtown. Now I hear the echo.
[00:21:49] Speaker 3
‸ All
[00:21:50] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
right, so plus or minus 1.95-acre
[00:21:52] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:21:52–00:21:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:56] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
site, unoccupied building. It's in the commercial, or
[00:22:00] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:22:00–00:22:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:22:05] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
use. On
[00:22:07] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:06–00:22:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:22:09] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:22:09] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:22:10] Speaker 4
change. This shows the CL, which will allow for the commercial mixed-use large building type. This will allow for redevelopment to occur at a height of eight stories, conditioned upon City Council approval based with the developer's agreement based on a number of factors. There's no entitlement vesting with this type of change, and it's also not a change to the zoning district whatsoever. As we ‸ outlined in the staff report, there's need justification for change that is analyzed as well as relationship of the amendment to the comp plan. And
[00:22:43] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:43–00:22:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:22:48] Speaker 4
In order to achieve the density that's allowed through the 125 dwelling units per acre, as are roughly six
[00:22:55] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:22:55–00:23:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:23:00] Speaker 4
building is a much more functionally appropriate. The city will also maintain an interest in the type of development because a developer's agreement is required for these types of projects. The CRA plan details that this is a medium priority project, and therefore would happen, the
[00:23:20] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:20–00:23:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:23:22] Speaker 4
the last CRA plan. And you can see a little bullet
[00:23:26] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:25–00:23:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:23:31] Speaker 4
essentially for the city staff to encourage these types of projects to occur on the subject property.
[00:23:37] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:37–00:23:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:23:40] Speaker 4
that the request falls in compliance with. It is not contrary to the goals and objectives with the Waterfront Master Plan, the CRA plan, or the comp plan, mixed use future landings policies, which allow up to 125 dwelling units per acre. And then as far as the second finding, there is no change to
[00:23:57] Attribution uncertain
the
[00:23:57] Speaker 4
zoning, so there is no conflict with the comp plan. Or the zoning code and
[00:24:01] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:01–00:24:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:24:06] Speaker 4
that the request is in compliance with also provided is the height comparison of other mixed use projects that have been reviewed in the past by the city, as
[00:24:16] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:16–00:24:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:24:16] Speaker 4 · Machine re-recognized
two photographs of or photograph of two existing projects that are nine stories and eight stories tall, respectively, within the Cocoa Village area. And then the existing map showing the different height allowances currently permitted by the overlay district of note is the waterfront area, which is directly to the east of the subject property, which allows the eight story buildings. Staff is recommending approval of the item and respectfully requests approval,
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:24:16–00:24:46 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[00:24:46] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:46–00:24:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:24:58] Speaker 5
‸ I just wanted to summarize what's transpired with this particular project ‸ in front of us now. And
[00:25:07] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:07–00:25:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:25:12] Speaker 5
where it showed the way that the proposed hotel rendered. There you go. This is a very important point because this was brought up during a council meeting. And there were some people that were really concerned about the height. And to me it just it relates to what's in the area already. For some reason people are reacting to eight stories that it's going to look like 13, 14 or higher. And we've already got condos of that height. Now ‸ this rendering showing how it relates to the tower that's next to it is a very good example. And then during that public meeting I brought up the height of this building. And also of the a lot of people are surprised but the village of playhouse height. And you can verify this very easily by just driving over the bridge. And noticing how relative they are. So when I hear people showing a concern about eight stories it doesn't seem like it has weight to the argument. Because it's not going against what's already there. ‸ I take it more of a prevention for new development to come here when people take that position. As it was stated earlier by the other board members. ‸ This has been a vacant property for years. This is located in the main downtown ‸ area. And I really feel that not only is this a good professional project. Especially for the people that are interested in doing this. And I'm under the opinion they're the same group that have already built the luxury rentals on 524. Am I correct? 28? Yeah.
[00:27:19] Speaker 1
It's ‸ the framework. They're building it. Not built yet.
[00:27:23] Speaker 5
Right.
[00:27:23] Speaker 1
Well,
[00:27:24] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
it's up. But ‸ it's vertical. But it's the same group, right, sir? Yes, sir. And again, the construction that they're doing is quality construction at that location. The other example supporting my position, why there should not be a height concern, is your other display where it showed the Oleander Point. Yeah. Okay. A lot of people don't realize that the 21 Riverside Drive, that's nine stories, not counting the roof. And then you've got at Whitley Bay, which is on the other side where the water tower is. I ‸ think you had a screen on that one, too.
[00:28:11] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:11–00:28:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:28:18] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:28:19] Speaker 5
It's the first one. I'm sorry for all this back and
[00:28:22] Attribution uncertain
forth.
[00:28:22] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
No, it's okay.
[00:28:23] Speaker 5
There we go. There we go. Take a look at that. Now, the first condos that people got afraid of was the condos my family built right under the water tower in this picture. And all the concerns that were made was then. That was before any of these others were built. And I
[00:28:45] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:44–00:28:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:28:50] Speaker 5
at this here. And I don't see, I don't think that I've heard anybody on the board show that either. So rather than drag this out any further, I definitely support this project. And I'm prepared to make a motion to approve it based on the staff recommendation. Second. But I just don't understand why there's so much concern about height when we just went over all this. So I'd like to hear from the rest of
[00:29:20] Attribution uncertain
the
[00:29:20] Speaker 5
board. I think you did. There was a second. Oh, there was
[00:29:24] Speaker 2
a second? Wow, we're moving
[00:29:26] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
quick. I like that.
[00:29:28] Speaker 3
Have any developers shown any interest in this property?
[00:29:33] Speaker 4
Yes.
[00:29:35] Speaker 3
Serious interest? Yes. My only concern, and ‸ I've said it before, but it's not your doing. But property just lies unused for five years, seven years. Now we look seven years down the road. It's just something I've never gotten used to here. Where we could grow old and the next generation gets around to doing something.
[00:30:02] Attribution uncertain
I
[00:30:02] Speaker 3
know that's frustrating to the city staff. But we don't really move quickly. That's just a comment. That's all.
[00:30:13] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Economic conditions. Economic conditions.
[00:30:16] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Things are going
[00:30:16] Speaker 7
to get
[00:30:17] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
earlier.
[00:30:17] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:17–00:30:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:24] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
It does seem like it takes a while. But when you're in the multimillions that are in the 20 mark or whatever, that's a major undertaking. That's a lot of money. And that's why you will see partners, partnerships created in order to get a project, for example, like this done. It's
[00:30:45] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:45–00:30:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:47] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:30:47] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:30:47] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:30:47] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:30:48] Speaker 5
So.
[00:30:50] Speaker 1
Mr. Chair,
[00:30:51] Attribution uncertain
if
[00:30:51] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I could jump in for a second. Just to provide some clarification. We
[00:30:56] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:55–00:31:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:04] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
last year. But just to be clear for the board,
[00:31:10] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:10–00:31:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:14] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
ago by the Framework Group. And
[00:31:17] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:17–00:31:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:20] Attribution uncertain
You
[00:31:20] Speaker 1
can go on the property appraisers' website. I think the three to seven years was probably the three to seven years from the original or from the 2008 Cocoa Waterfront Master Plan. We
[00:31:34] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:33–00:31:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:38] Speaker 1
to this property.
[00:31:39] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:39–00:31:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:46] Speaker 1
years there was probably dated. Although we didn't make any of those dates. But we're here with a developer who's going to in the near future submit a site plan.
[00:32:03] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:03–00:32:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:32:03] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:32:07] Speaker 1
Development. Development. Yeah, next we go to a development agreement. And so we're anticipating that that will happen real soon there. So there's a real project, real developer, and a real purchase of the property.
[00:32:29] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Mr. Chairman, sorry, before you call the question on the motion, can we reopen it while we're on the record? Thanks.
[00:32:38] Speaker 2
Just once again, I want to reopen to the public. Make sure there are still no more questions on this topic. None heard. If we have no further discussion for the board, I already have one motion. I already heard a second.
[00:33:00] Attribution uncertain
I
[00:33:00] Speaker 2
didn't. Was it? Okay. All right. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? None heard? All right, Mr. Mayor, that's up to you now.
[00:33:18] Speaker 5
So, yes, sir.
[00:33:20] Speaker 2
Thank you. Thank
[00:33:23] Attribution uncertain
you. All
[00:33:23] Speaker 2
right. We are on. Thank
[00:33:26] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:33:25–00:33:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:34:16] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: flagged by the automatic checks · 00:34:16–00:34:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:34:16] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:34:18] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:34:18–00:34:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:34:19] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yeah,
[00:34:19] Speaker 5
they knew we were having the meeting tonight and they said let's get that bright train on the pictures here.
[00:34:28] Speaker 6
Alrighty, thank you everyone. This
[00:34:33] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:32–00:34:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:34:40] Speaker 6
and tree protection and replacement standards. So
[00:34:48] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:47–00:34:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:34:51] Speaker 6
for discussion and negotiation of development agreements related to arbor mitigation contribution fees. The city also desires to incentivize maturity tree preservation and discourage clear cutting in the hopes that developers will design around trees as much as possible. This ordinance furthers on and off site tree preservation, enhanced tree preservation and replacement standards, specifies new arbor mitigation fees, and increases fines for non-compliance. This is a summary of the changes to the tree ‸ preservation.
[00:35:25] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:25–00:35:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:35:28] Speaker 6
There are now preservation credits for trees being preserved. There are new tree replacement standards. There is new a new revised arbor mitigation policy, and there are enhanced penalties in a section for land clearing or removal of trees without a permit. So, to summarize the minimum tree planting requirements, the new minimum tree planting requirements have been created that deal with both the minimum number and the minimum size of trees for new construction.
[00:36:00] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:36:00–00:36:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:36:05] Speaker 6
fund. ‸ preservation credits for trees being preserved. So this now is specifies that it provides for one tree credit for ‸ every 12 inches. That's diameter at breast height of trees preserved on site. The tree preservation credits offer an increase offered are increased for specimen trees over 24 inches up to a maximum of 12 credits in order to encourage the retention of specimen trees and for developers to design around them.
[00:36:38] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:36:38–00:36:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:36:44] Speaker 6
the city or conveyed to the city lands on lands that are conveyed to the city. Three additional tree credits will be provided for each tree as defined within this ordinance within areas above areas above one half acre. The tree replacement standards. This proposes a system in which a certain number of trees must be replaced for each tree removed depending upon the size of the tree removed as opposed to the current per inch system. And in this system the number of overall trees and consequently the tree canopy is intended to be preserved even if the number of inches is not immediately replaced.
[00:37:26] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:37:26–00:37:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:37:32] Speaker 6
so trees less than six inches do not need to be replaced. Now a summary of the arbor mitigation policy. When the number of trees able to be planted in
[00:37:43] Speaker 6 · Machine re-recognized
the
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:37:43–00:37:43 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:37:43] Speaker 6
development is smaller than the number of trees required for replacement a contribution to the arbor mitigation fund may be available. This
[00:37:52] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:37:51–00:37:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:37:52] Speaker 6
requirement for three quotes. Fees will be determined per inch or by one reasonable professional quote from an arborist for trees not to be replaced. The
[00:38:11] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:28]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:10–00:38:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:38:38] Speaker 6
for failure to obtain a tree removal permit. To come into compliance, a property owner will have to obtain an after the fact tree removal permit. This will require a tree survey, which may need to be created based on historical data. and compliance with tree replacement and mitigation fees as would normally apply moreover additional aggregated fines are imposed per
[00:39:07] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:39:07–00:39:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:39:09] Speaker 6
tree as permitted by florida law and additional fines are clarified for land clearing ‸ by the one quarter acre and lastly for failure to abide by a cease and desist order in summary this ordinance furthers on and off-site tree preservation enhanced tree preservation and replacement standards specifies new arbor mitigation fees and increases fines to ensure compliance the end
[00:39:48] No voice detected
all
[00:39:49] Speaker 2
right i'd like to open this up for discussion for the board chair i do have a question
[00:39:55] Speaker 9
after review of the information that you provided it does state within the context of this that the ordinance introduced introduces a tree preservation credit system and clarifies the tree replacement standards then goes on to clarify it says that city staff has worked closely with the city arborist in preparation of the proposed ordinance so that last sentence there when it says work closely with the city arborist was there another uh municipality that was used in comparison for these um proposed credit system proposed um replacement standards and in conjunction with that the mitigation funding fees
[00:40:37] Speaker 9 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:40:37–00:40:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:40:40] Speaker 9
it just says this is supposed to be the officiating person but where's their fact finding from
[00:40:46] Attribution uncertain
allons
[00:40:46] Speaker 9
allons
[00:40:48] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:40:46–00:41:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:40:53] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:40:54] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:10]
[00:41:04] Speaker 6
Some were in areas where there's virgin land like what we have.
[00:41:08] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:08–00:41:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:41:13] Speaker 6
Mirabito. Mirabato,
[00:41:15] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:14–00:41:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:41:16] Speaker 6
And he is the one who we've worked with within the city. There's actually more than one arborist on city staff.
[00:41:24] Speaker 9
So do we know just just for clarification? Let's
[00:41:29] Speaker 9 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:28–00:41:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:41:32] Speaker 9
There was a municipality that was utilized in South Florida.
[00:41:37] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
‸ Do
[00:41:37] Speaker 9
we know what those can we clarify what were those municipalities that were utilized for the sake of arriving at these numbers?
[00:41:52] Speaker 8
Yes. ‸ So they really kind of vary per a different topic that you just brought up. Right. For for, let's say, example, the arbor mitigation fees. We we did do searches there were they were broader than just a couple of cities. We did searches across municode, which publishes codes for cities all over Florida. So we did do quite a bit of comparison with other cities and in preparing this.
[00:42:24] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:42:24–00:42:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:42:32] Speaker 8
at quite a few different cities, including Jacksonville. And I can I can pull up a couple of other ones. We looked at quite a few, but the average was about $100 per inch, which is what we included in this ordinance. Jacksonville's was the lowest at 85.
[00:42:50] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:11]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:42:50–00:43:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:43:01] Speaker 8
a non specimen tree. So I can tell the board that we like I said, we looked at quite a few ordinances and and codes for each kind of component that we that we're changing in terms of the tree report. So,
[00:43:21] Attribution uncertain
we looked at the replacement
[00:43:21] Speaker 8
or sorry, the preservation credits that you asked about the 12 inch giving a credit, which is essentially equivalent to one one tree. And basically reducing the replacement
[00:43:37] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:43:36–00:43:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:43:40] Speaker 8
That's essentially what a credit does.
[00:43:43] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:43–00:43:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:43:51] Speaker 8
because it can be easily calculated. You know, all of the trees can kind of be added up as opposed to each tree having to be ‸ surveyed and, you know, determine the width. And so we were able to apply the credits in
[00:44:05] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:44:05–00:44:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:44:08] Speaker 8
That's how we arrived at. And that was with the city arborist suggestion using
[00:44:14] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:44:13–00:44:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:44:19] Speaker 2
Thank you.
[00:44:22] Speaker 8
Yeah. Yeah. And good point. So also I'll make the point that the previous ordinance did not offer credits for preserving trees, except for in the circumstance that you have a specimen tree that's over 42 inches in width, which is a very large tree. So the vast majority of cases, you know, developers would submit an application and even if they were trying to preserve areas that were that have, you know, quite a bit of trees on the property, they wouldn't receive any credit for doing that. And so that was one of the objectives in trying to include these tree preservation credits, the system in this amendment.
[00:45:13] Speaker 5
I just have a couple of questions. Of course, I like what I'm reading because it's about saving trees and everybody knows my position about trees. But there's a couple of points that I wanted to discuss with staff, if I could, where it pertains to getting that area of this ordinance where it's pertaining to getting approval from
[00:45:39] Attribution uncertain
the ordinance.
[00:45:39] Speaker 5
From code enforcement. Do you know the area where I'm talking about before it was several pages before the screen we have now?
[00:45:50] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:45:50–00:45:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:45:52] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Machine re-recognized
I think you're referring to that would be in the case that trees are removed without obtaining a tree removal permit or a development permit application or development permit approval. Excuse me.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:45:52–00:46:08 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[00:46:07] Speaker 5 · Machine re-recognized
There was another.
[00:46:09] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:46:09–00:46:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:46:10] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:46:10] Speaker 5 · Machine re-recognized
talking about the after the fact? See, there's no pages or anything on here for me to point it out to you.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:46:10–00:46:20 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[00:46:18] Speaker 6 · Machine re-recognized
There is numbers way down
[00:46:20] Speaker 6
in
[00:46:20] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:46:20–00:46:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:46:23] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:46:24] Speaker 5
it it's wherever it requires the code. enforcement.
[00:46:37] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:46:29–00:46:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:46:38] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:46:40] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
think what's important here code enforcement and we're all very familiar with what code enforcement requires. It
[00:46:49] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:46:48–00:46:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:46:54] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
rid of junk cars and things like that I really feel that because this is an area that is very strong for development, that instead of the code enforcement board reviewing or making, creating fines or trying to understand whether somebody has crossed the line or not I really feel that it should be the building the chief building inspector, not the code enforcement representative. The building, the code enforcement
[00:47:25] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:25–00:47:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:47:33] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
in my opinion for what this is talking about
[00:47:35] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:35–00:47:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:47:40] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
enforcement board I
[00:47:42] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:41–00:47:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:47:44] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
we're dealing with people that are licensed and very familiar with how the laws need to be addressed. and it's above and beyond what the code enforcement board I think does and that would be one thing I would highly recommend that we change the language on that I do like also the fact that
[00:48:05] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:05–00:48:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:48:10] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
that's something on our past meetings that I thought you know four inches three inches I mean come on
[00:48:16] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:16–00:48:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:48:20] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
far as designating the trees that need to be replaced I don't know and I need the boards input on this we discussed also at the last meeting under open discussion, the difference between laurel oaks and live oaks. Laurel oaks have a very short lifespan. Live
[00:48:46] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:48:45–00:48:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:48:53] No voice detected
should
[00:48:53] Speaker 5
that be brought in to this ordinance as an intention leaning more on salvaging live oaks rather than laurel oaks that's what I'd like to know if the board if I if you all think that this is beginning to be a little too complicated or to leave it like it is I was just curious what the
[00:49:16] Speaker 5 · Machine re-recognized
board
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:49:16–00:49:16 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:49:17] Speaker 5
thinks
[00:49:19] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
I mean if we're gonna if you're trying to specify exactly which trees and which species of a tree and that that kind of complicates I'm talking about oak trees only well I know but it still kind of complicates the situation further which I was afraid you're gonna ‸ say that which
[00:49:40] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:49:39–00:49:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:49:43] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
you know I mean the ordinance right now as proposed, is a very good clarification on how we're moving forward. the other, my personal opinion, to address your other concern about the code enforcement not being the ones to enforce this, it's
[00:50:12] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:50:11–00:50:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:50:13] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
have city trucks to go out and enforce city ordinances I don't see the building
[00:50:21] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
that's after the fact though
[00:50:22] Speaker 7
‸ keep in mind we're there's a difference between code enforcement and the code enforcement board that's true too okay when I talk about code enforcement we're talking about the board
[00:50:34] Speaker 7 · Machine re-recognized
A whole
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:50:34–00:50:40 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[00:50:34] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
different set of circumstances. Yeah, but the Code Enforcement Board
[00:50:40] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:50:40–00:50:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:50:42] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
of their gets brought to light everything that's happened within that month by their code enforcement officers and everything else, which is where the, person who is being fined can come forward and say well this is what I thought or blah, blah, blah, blah. That's basically their way of coming before City Council ‸ and saying well I didn't understand or such and such such and such I see that's where they can come forward and say well I ‸ can't afford $5,000
[00:51:10] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:51:09–00:51:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:51:14] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
being the fact that they have four districts or four zones I should say and four persons you know dedicated to each zone I haven't really seen anybody else going out patrolling zones. Now, ‸ there are other departments that go out and actively patrol throughout the
[00:51:35] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:51:35–00:51:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:51:38] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
don't think we're gonna ‸ ask them to get involved I don't see any of the departments willing to take this on and yes the verbiage does specifically say code enforcement board but as I brought up Code Enforcement Board also meets once a month. And that's where people that are being fined by code enforcement can come forward and say well I didn't know or this is how I'm gonna ‸ pay or whatever they need to do and code
[00:52:07] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:07–00:52:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:52:10] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
I don't know if that satisfies your
[00:52:16] Speaker 5
yes it does and it gave me a different way of looking at this as a guideline. What
[00:52:30] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:29–00:52:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:52:33] Speaker 5
removal permit. So then that means information about being careful not to do something would also be in the building department. But this is sort of like after the fact.
[00:52:45] Speaker 2
Well, this right here, this was basically saying, make sure that you have all your T's
[00:52:51] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:52:50–00:52:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:52:53] Speaker 2
is in the vault could be 10-15 years old and you may be paying for extra trees
[00:53:02] Speaker 5
I understand and thanks for that satisfies my question thank you
[00:53:13] Speaker 10
I can go last I'm not in
[00:53:14] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice
a rush okay I just had one clarification what Alec you were talking about the difference between trees that last 25 30 years versus trees that last 100 years I'm not privy to the information when it talks about tree credits and then it says specimen trees what I think that clarifies the difference that you're referring to, does it not?
[00:53:42] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: words the first reading may have missed · 00:53:41–00:53:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:53:44] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
are trees that are 24 inches and above in in width. Okay. Diameter, sorry.
[00:53:54] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice
Yeah, well in
[00:53:55] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:53:55–00:54:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:54:00] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
a little bit later it mentions specimen trees over 24.
[00:54:06] Speaker 9 + overlapping voice
40 so it was in the old in the updated terminology
[00:54:10] Speaker 9 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:54:10–00:54:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:54:14] Speaker 9 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
yes that was going to
[00:54:16] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
all right I wasn't yeah catching that. Thank you. well there's a lot
[00:54:21] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
here to
[00:54:21] Speaker 7
read
[00:54:21] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
‸ sharing information ‸ it
[00:54:25] Speaker 8
is a significant ordinance I mean but but I would just clarify there so we do
[00:54:32] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
have in the in the changes the proposed changes that,
[00:54:36] Speaker 8
there is a difference in the number of credits, preservation credits that you can receive. And we do give extra credits for any specimen tree above 24, but
[00:54:50] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:54:50–00:54:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:54:55] Speaker 8
Because again, we're trying to incentivize preservation of those really large trees.
[00:55:04] No voice detected
And
[00:55:05] Speaker 9 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:55:04–00:55:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:55:09] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:55:09] Speaker 9 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
[00:55:20] Speaker 7
so
[00:55:21] Attribution uncertain
i'm
[00:55:21] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:55:20–00:55:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:55:22] Attribution uncertain
good okay a
[00:55:22] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:55:23] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
into this. board
[00:55:24] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
this.
[00:55:25] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I must
[00:55:25] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
compliment
[00:55:26] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
the
[00:55:26] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
staff.
[00:55:26] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I mean, this is a lot of reading. A couple administrative items on on the changes that
[00:55:33] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:55:33–00:55:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:55:43] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice
‸ it discusses that,
[00:55:44] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:55:44–00:55:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:55:49] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice
then it strikes everything out of for ‸ reason. uh ‸ unacceptable risk has been added to that, you know, uh paragraph,
[00:55:56] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:55:56–00:56:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:56:02] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice
It references that the Florida statute will tell you what residential property and unacceptable risk, uh is defined as that Florida statute only, uh recognizes the residential property definition.
[00:56:18] Speaker 8
so Let me pull it up and. ‸ No
[00:56:21] Speaker 10
problem. i I checked out today and then on my phone, I have it too.
[00:56:35] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice
‸ so um the it doesn't specifically define that uh per se as in a definition section, but
[00:56:45] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:56:45–00:56:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:56:50] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice
poses an unacceptable risk if removal is the only means of practically mitigating its risk risk below moderate as determined by the tree risk assessment procedures outlined in Best Management Practices Tree Risk Assessment,
[00:57:04] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:57:04–00:57:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:57:05] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Edition, 2017. So that is specifically included in the statute. Yeah,
[00:57:10] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
it just wasn't as uh said as a definition in the statute, right? So the fact that we call it is that. Look, I'm not a lawyer. I just read like one. um You don't
[00:57:20] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:57:20–00:57:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:57:20] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice
one
[00:57:21] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
on TV? Yeah,
[00:57:21] Speaker 10
that's it. You know, and and I will now hold my opinion
[00:57:25] Speaker 10 · Machine re-recognized
to
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:57:25–00:57:25 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:57:25] Speaker 10
the end real quick. But um maybe then subsection uh E, of course, again, uh 3A. It references uh except as provided in subsections E2 and E4C. I cannot find an E4C. I
[00:57:43] Speaker 10 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:57:42–00:57:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:57:45] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:57:45] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
[00:57:52] Speaker 8
not included in this particular ordinance because it wasn't changed.
[00:58:05] No voice detected
so
[00:58:06] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:14]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:58:06–00:58:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:58:20] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:58:20] Speaker 10 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:58:21] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:58:23] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:58:24] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:58:27] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
aren't changing anything about the existing ordinance for, you know, a good section of it,
[00:58:33] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:58:33–00:58:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:58:35] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Okay. So that nothing in E4C is being changed. That is the um tree removal activities that are already exempt from from the code.
[00:58:47] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
So the addition of D makes more sense to me that's
[00:58:49] Attribution uncertain
what i'm saying so you know
[00:58:49] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:58:49–00:58:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:58:53] Speaker 9 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[00:58:56] Speaker 9
personal knowledge moving forward, when we see
[00:58:59] Speaker 9 · Machine re-recognized
ellipses
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:58:59–00:59:00 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:59:00] Speaker 9
in these documents, that means that this information has has not had any revision and or change.
[00:59:07] Speaker 9 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:59:06–00:59:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:59:10] Speaker 9
to print it. Correct. Okay. we're Good.
[00:59:13] Speaker 10
Yeah, thank you. That's all I have for administrative items. uh On a personal note, I will say that uh to anybody who listens or or sees this, I learned a lot uh with these changes. um You know, if you have a problem with the way that this, that the trees are regulated in the city, I think you can have the same problem I have, which is to,
[00:59:35] Speaker 10 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:59:35–00:59:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:59:37] Speaker 10
Florida statute. I think it's a excellent example of the the path the path, the path
[00:59:43] Attribution uncertain
to
[00:59:43] Speaker 10
heck being paid with good intentions, because it basically forces everyone to have a arborist come out before you cut down a tree. And I won't say that I did it, but I know someone who cut down a tree, and it had a giant hole in the middle of it, and I don't need an arborist to tell me that a tree with a giant hole is not good for my property. So thank you to the state for ensuring that uh everyone follows the same rules. I get what they want. Again, it's uh it's paved with good intentions. I just think it's ridiculous. um my My deepest concern actually with these changes is exactly that. ‸ Like, will this be levied? i
[01:00:19] Speaker 10 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:19–01:00:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:00:22] Speaker 10
the common person as heavily as it it appears? Right. It says new homes, but, but I just built back
[01:00:28] Speaker 10 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:28–01:00:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:00:32] Speaker 10
because there was a tree that had to get cut down.
[01:00:34] Speaker 10 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:34–01:00:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:00:38] Speaker 10
the state regulates is acceptable. Right. But it's
[01:00:40] Speaker 10 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:40–01:00:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:00:45] Speaker 10
uh ‸ Yeah, so that's my only that's my deepest concern with this, uh is that I could see. I'd i'd love to see wording that that would specify what we really want, which is companies that are coming in here building things, building developments.
[01:00:59] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
i i I do respect that. It does say that it's not to be applied to residential and duplex that are used to be single thing for residential purposes. I
[01:01:08] Speaker 10
guess I just saw the first part where it said, right? New, new homes. Yeah,
[01:01:12] Speaker 9 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
it is
[01:01:13] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
in there.
[01:01:13] Speaker 9 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Okay.
[01:01:13] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
That's perfect. That's perfect. That's my deepest concern. Yeah, ‸ because
[01:01:16] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:01:16–01:01:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:01:19] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
So, yes, thank you for that. Thank you. So, so us people scraping the bottom. We're okay.
[01:01:23] Speaker 10 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yeah, right
[01:01:24] Speaker 2
right.
[01:01:25] Speaker 10
That's it. That's all I worry about. All right. That's all I have. Thank you.
[01:01:28] Speaker 2
No problem. Is there uh any further discussion from ‸ the board? is there anybody in the public that would like to speak on this? Anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this? Okay. okay None heard. um I believe it was very well put together. I do believe it's a step in the correct direction. so
[01:02:01] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a possible machine repair could not be placed · 01:02:01–01:02:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:02:03] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
make a motion to accept ordinance number 20-2023. I'll
[01:02:07] Speaker 2
second it. Very well. All right. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? None heard. Very well. All right, Mr. Mayor.
[01:02:29] No voice detected
I
[01:02:29] Speaker 2
do see that there is something for the tree board.
[01:02:35] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:02:35–01:02:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:02:42] Speaker 2
Avenue.
[01:02:56] Speaker 6
24-619
[01:02:57] Attribution uncertain
consideration removal of an oak tree in the right of way
[01:02:57] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:02:56–01:02:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:02:57] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[01:02:58] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:14]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:02:58–01:03:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:03:12] Speaker 6
So because it is the city's tree, essentially, that is why we're bringing this to you. Even though it is on a piece of property, it's officially the city's tree because it's in the right of way okay
[01:03:25] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:42]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:03:25–01:04:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:04:07] Speaker 6
one concern is that the extra force of the lever arm of the tree causes a bending movement in the trunk or the base the tree is located on the right of way just on the owner's side of the sidewalk approximately 25 feet from the center of the road it is the most prominent tree in the area meaning that it is fully exposed to the wind.
[01:04:24] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 01:04:24–01:04:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:04:28] Speaker 6
the tree is about 25 years old and is currently in good health based on a scale of poor, fair, good and excellent defects and conditions of concern. The tree looks to be in good health and there are no major deficits. A major could be concern would be the overall live crown ratio, potentially causing stress to the lower half of the tree. the primary concern The primary concern.
[01:04:56] Attribution uncertain
the primary
[01:04:56] Speaker 6
concern here is the driveway uplifting, causing property damage and a
[01:05:00] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:00–01:05:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:05:03] Speaker 6
roots are encompassing around the water meter and the lines, causing a leak and potentially a financial burden. Additionally, the extra stress of the uplifting uplifted canopy puts an increased amount of leverage on the trunk and base of the tree. ‸ risk of failure. The likelihood of The
[01:05:23] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:22–01:05:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:05:28] Speaker 6
In this picture, you can see the water meter. It's the little tiny brown box with the blue dot on it. Do you see it? The likelihood of causing damage to the driveway is eminent The
[01:05:41] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:40–01:05:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:05:44] Speaker 6
to the driveway and
[01:05:45] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:45–01:05:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:05:50] Speaker 6
the
[01:05:51] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:50–01:05:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:05:55] Speaker 6
There are a few options that can be considered for mitigating to, for mitigation to lower the risk from this tree.
[01:06:03] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:06:03–01:06:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:06:04] Speaker 6
eliminate the potential risk for the driveway hazard, as well as encircling the water meter and causing damage. Do
[01:06:11] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:06:11–01:06:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:06:13] Speaker 6
the water meter needs to be replaced from damage and the driveway continues to lift, causing a hazard. Re-inspection. If option two is selected, then this tree should be re-inspected every two years unless additional health or safety concerns come up that would warrant more frequent attention. Tree inspection services should be performed by an ISA, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Arborist, skilled in the science of tree risk assessment. If removal is approved, the proposed tree
[01:06:47] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:06:47–01:06:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:06:49] Speaker 6
continued driveway lifting and associated risk, as well as prevent root encroachment into the water meter. The City Arborist has recommended that a tree be replaced, that this tree be replaced with
[01:07:02] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:07:02–01:07:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:07:06] Speaker 6
And the staff recommends that the
[01:07:08] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:07:08–01:07:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:07:18] Speaker 7 · Machine re-recognized
Was this original request from the property owner or is this something at the City?
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:07:18–01:07:40 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[01:07:24] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Machine re-recognized
I believe it was. The City came to do it, but I believe it was at the request of the property owner. I have a question.
[01:07:39] Speaker 5 · Machine re-recognized
This board
[01:07:40] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:07:40–01:07:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:07:41] Speaker 5
to be more inclined to say no and there are some ways that we could potentially save it because it is a live oak. It is in very good health and these are the type of trees, live oaks, where you can actually remove the roots that ‸ are causing the problem without having to wait or inspect it every year or two. And that could be roots to be removed around the water meter as
[01:08:08] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:08:07–01:08:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:08:12] Speaker 5
driveway
[01:08:12] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:08:12–01:08:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:08:21] Speaker 5
this is one of the better trees that City of Cocoa is known for. We have a tremendous amount of live oaks and I'm glad that this board voted for us when I presented it and it was during open discussion as a matter of fact that we present this to
[01:08:39] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:08:39–01:08:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:08:42] Speaker 5
a Tree City USA ‸ recognition that we had lost. The only thing that sort of lets me go with the flow is the fact that the guidelines
[01:09:01] Speaker 5 · Machine re-recognized
we've
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:09:01–01:09:01 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:09:01] Speaker 5
put were replacing ‸ a live oak tree somewhere else in the city
[01:09:06] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:09:06–01:09:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:09:10] Speaker 5 · Machine re-recognized
I'd
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:09:10–01:09:10 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:09:10] Speaker 5
share this information about
[01:09:13] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:09:12–01:09:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:09:15] Attribution uncertain
I
[01:09:15] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
[01:09:21] Speaker 5
are removed that we had a discussion how much it would cost just to correct the lifted part of the sidewalk and pour another sidewalk in that area around the tree. That was another solution in other areas that this was brought up. But I just thought I'd share this to see what the rest of the board feels now that I've shared it with everyone. Thank you.
[01:09:46] Speaker 7
Yeah, I concur with Alec. I typically vote no on removal of trees. A couple of things that concern me about this particular item. When they trim these oak trees and I see it all over the place. They trim them up so high they really make an unstable. ‸ The trees are not supposed to look like this. You know, they're supposed to have a canopy. They're supposed to be weighted down. It actually makes them stronger. When ‸ you use this thing looks like it could blow over any 68 mile an hour wind. But
[01:10:21] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:10:21–01:10:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:10:26] Speaker 7
It looks like a huge liability. I don't know how close it is to this house, but it
[01:10:32] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:10:32–01:10:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:10:35] Speaker 7
It's going to tear up property. And if in fact the the city has determined that it's it's in the right of way and it's our tree.
[01:10:47] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:10:47–01:10:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:10:50] Speaker 7
and you're looking at lawsuits and I just
[01:10:56] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:10:56–01:10:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:10:58] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:10:58] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:10:59] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:10:59] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:10:59] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice
like that.
[01:11:00] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:11:00–01:11:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:11:00] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
destroyed this tree that high. Yeah, they destroyed this tree.
[01:11:04] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:11:04–01:11:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:11:07] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice
That looks a little dangerous to me.
[01:11:09] Speaker 2
Do
[01:11:09] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 01:11:09–01:11:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:11:12] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:11:12] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:11:12] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:11:13] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[01:11:15] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:11:15] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:11:16] Attribution uncertain
The
[01:11:16] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
60-year-old?
[01:11:17] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:11:16–01:11:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:11:18] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice
58,
[01:11:19] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:11:18–01:11:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:11:25] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:11:26] Speaker 2
Thank you, sir. So I
[01:11:33] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:11:33–01:11:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:11:33] Speaker 2
to make sure that it was planted after the house was built.
[01:11:38] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:11:38–01:11:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:11:38] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:11:39] Speaker 2
to have asked the homeowner. What were you thinking?
[01:11:47] Speaker 11
Well, I got the same problem with my house. ‸ Beautiful tree and last year's hurricane has pushed it further and further over. ‸ And now in the last year, I would say the driveway is up more than two inches higher than it was when I bought the house a year ago. So, and I want to keep the tree. But I looked at it today and I'm going to have to take the tree out. So I'm sympathetic with the homeowner.
[01:12:23] Speaker 11 · Machine re-recognized
This, you know, if this tree in my yard falls on my cars, you know, I'm out a lot of money. So, I love trees, but when it comes to common sense, it seems like a common sense thing to remove this tree. Well, I'm glad
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:12:23–01:12:46 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[01:12:47] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
pretty being the city being designated as a tree city USA
[01:12:53] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:12:53–01:12:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:12:55] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
be where a situation like this and the trees removed.
[01:12:58] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:12:58–01:13:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:12:59] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:12:59] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[01:13:02] Speaker 5
this board felt was important to do. And I agree with you ‸ and I sympathize and bottom line. I'm just like you and I think Todd. I really don't want to see the tree go, but I think we have no choice on this. And the only reason that I feel a little more comfortable is because of the replacement requirement that we established when we brought the designation back. Thank you.
[01:13:29] Speaker 10 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:13:29–01:13:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:13:30] Speaker 10
to follow staff recommendations
[01:13:33] Speaker 10 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:13:32–01:13:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:13:34] Speaker 9 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[01:13:38] Speaker 9
Did you want to ask if there were any ‸ from the public?
[01:13:42] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I was going to ask that and I cut it off. Ask another question. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this matter?
[01:13:53] No voice detected
Okay.
[01:13:56] Speaker 2
So as far as voting on this, are we also clear on replacing it with a live oak and are we
[01:14:06] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:14:06–01:14:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:14:15] Speaker 2
I'm
[01:14:15] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:14:15–01:14:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:14:16] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
[01:14:23] Speaker 5
major renovations on 520 and we got grass areas there and I'm not familiar enough with what the landscaping is going to be. I kind of think it's not just going to be grass areas on 520 where we're narrowing the street. I'm wondering if, uh,
[01:14:39] Attribution uncertain
uh,
[01:14:40] Speaker 5
we might should consider, uh, as a credit if it could entice putting, uh, oak trees there and if that's
[01:14:47] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:14:47–01:14:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:14:49] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:14:50] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[01:14:53] Speaker 5
that.
[01:14:54] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
I'm
[01:14:54] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:14:54–01:14:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:14:57] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
same, same instances. You're going to have it 10, 15 years. It's going to
[01:15:02] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:15:02–01:15:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:15:08] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
I just know that I believe it was your recommendation last
[01:15:12] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 01:15:12–01:15:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:15:13] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:15:14] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[01:15:17] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
[01:15:21] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[01:15:23] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:15:24] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[01:15:30] Speaker 2
All right. Um, I've got nothing else. So if
[01:15:35] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized
you
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:15:35–01:15:35 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:15:35] Speaker 2
want to go ahead, if
[01:15:37] Attribution uncertain
I
[01:15:37] Speaker 2
can hear a motion.
[01:15:39] Speaker 10
My motion stands following following staff recommendation and the
[01:15:42] Speaker 10 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:15:42–01:15:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:15:45] Speaker 10 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:15:45–01:16:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:15:47] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:16]
[01:16:04] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:16:03–01:16:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:16:08] Speaker 2
minutes, Alex, uh, open it up for open discussion.
[01:16:12] No voice detected
Uh,
[01:16:14] Speaker 2
thank you.
[01:16:16] Speaker 5
‸ You're being mean today. Uh, the open discussion. Uh, I just wanted
[01:16:22] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:16:22–01:16:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:16:23] Attribution uncertain
I
[01:16:24] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[01:16:26] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
on here? Even though we have to. Yeah. They
[01:16:28] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
put it back on there just for you. Just for you.
[01:16:31] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Just for me. We all voted to
[01:16:34] Speaker 7
have that
[01:16:34] Speaker 5
unanimously, by the way.
[01:16:37] No voice detected
See
[01:16:37] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
you thought. ‸ But, uh, no, that was the, uh, only other thing I wanted to remind everybody.
[01:16:44] Speaker 2
If that wasn't there. Thank you. You're very welcome. Is
[01:16:49] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:16:48–01:16:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:16:52] Speaker 10
Yeah,
[01:16:52] Attribution uncertain
I
[01:16:52] Speaker 10
appreciate staffs. Let me nitpick.
[01:16:54] Speaker 10 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:16:53–01:16:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:16:55] Attribution uncertain
We
[01:16:55] Speaker 10 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:16:56] Speaker 10
Okay. Right. So thanks. Thank you for what
[01:16:58] Attribution uncertain
you
[01:16:58] Speaker 10
do.
[01:17:02] Speaker 2
All right.
[01:17:02] Speaker 7
Motion to adjourn.
[01:17:04] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
Um, yeah, I'll hear one. You got one. ‸ Can I hear a second? Second. All
[01:17:10] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:17:10–01:17:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:17:15] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:17:16] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:17:16] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:17:16] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[01:17:20] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:17:20–01:17:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:17:27] Speaker 7
I
[01:17:27] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:17:27–01:17:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:17:28] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:17:30] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Right to the middle.
[01:17:31] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:17:31–01:17:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:17:32] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I didn't
[01:17:32] Attribution uncertain
realize
[01:17:32] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
it.
[01:17:33] Speaker 7
A
[01:17:33] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
council member.
[01:17:35] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:17:35–01:17:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:17:35] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]