So thank our panellists in advance, because I'm sure they can say something interesting. Our panel consists of, starting up this side here with Dom Brubar of Avalon Advanced Materials. We have A.G. Griffin here of Lithium Australia, we have a cool clip of International Lithium Corp and we have Tim McCutcheon from Wealth Minerals. The topic is rather an interesting one that we have here, it's Lithium exploration slash M&A market and they're actually sort of, in my perception, two different issues because we haven't really seen any takeovers of Lithium explorers. So I'd like to take these questions and then throw out to a panellist here, what is the direction that Lithium exploration will go along in the next several years and what is going to be the evolution of the M&A situation in the space, particularly in light of the fact that we've seen so little M&A out until now, are we going to see more or is it just not going to happen? Because if we go back, we look at the rare earth space, there was really, except for the M&A composition in the materials, I can't think of another takeover of a rare earth company, despite the fact that there were so many of them at one point. So is it going to be different in the Lithium space? Interesting to look at there. Now the big mother of M&A deals in the Lithium space in the last decade was the Talisman deal, where Talisman was acquired by a Chinese group and Rockwood, and of course Rockwood was then taken over by Albemarle and it was all wrapped up there, but so they sort of shared that ultimate ownership of that thing, but that was a deal that was over 700 million Australian dollars. So it set the bar very high on M&A in the Lithium space. So what I'll do is, instead of dealing with the Lithium exploration first, I will ask you a question about the M&A in the Lithium space, and first I want to throw out an idea that's basically to me, is that Tesla is the inevitable deal that probably won't happen. Now by Tesla here, I don't mean Tesla getting taken over, but I mean Tesla being a protagonist in the acquisition of companies in their supply chain, and they've steadfastly refused to not only acquire companies in the battery and rare earth supply chains, but they've actually walked away even from some deals like we saw with Bacanora in Mexico, and they just think that they're going to survive just in time and that people will provide them with the product because they're Tesla. So I'd like to go through our panel here, starting with Don, and you know, deal with this contention. Why is Tesla not being a protagonist in the space, and do we need to see them, or do we need to see them or somebody else become a protagonist from the end users of the Lithium batteries, Lithium ion batteries? Don? Well I've never talked to them to fully understand what their strategy is on it. It is a bit difficult to understand looking at it from the outside in, given the critical importance of Lithium and the formulation of the energy storage solution for their electric vehicles, I would have thought they would be a little bit more proactive than they have been in terms of securing supply. Presumably there is a strategy there somewhere. Obviously they did have some strategy in terms of inspiring more investment in exploration through those MOUs they entered into with Pure Energy and Bacanora. That certainly did inspire other players, explorers, to start looking for opportunities to find Lithium exploration properties and start investing in those. But their longer term strategy on securing supply, I don't have any real insight, and I wonder whether they have really thought it through from a security supply standpoint in the long term, and perhaps some of the other panelists have some further insight there. Kirill? Yes, let me introduce myself. I'm Kirill Klip. I'm representing the International Lithium. It's a very interesting question and we all remember how Elon Musk called our beloved Lithium just a salt on a salad. But now I hope that this situation is changing because without that salt it's very difficult to digest any of that salad. And what I can see in the industry and I can talk a little bit on part of Chinese companies who are very aggressively building now the secure supply in our industry. And one of them, Genfeng Lithium is our co-stone investor, cornerstone investor and financing to our joint venture project. I can see that this MNA is coming and definitely the moment is below radar screens of the most investors because this MNA comes when companies like Genfeng acquiring Lithium takeoffs. We just witnessed recently the deal with Spielberg, when they bought just 5% stake in the company, but securing 70% of supply from that company. Or another deal just recently, Lithium Americas, which is still subject to approval by Chinese authorities. When again, Genfeng is acquiring 20% in the company, but securing 70% of off-take with Lithium Americas. Or case like with us when Genfeng has right to 80% of our project in Mariana where we just announce our resources. Please tell me when to stop because I can throw quite a few numbers. We'll progress along. Out of that comes the idea that are the Chinese the smartest guys in the room in the Lithium space? There's a lot of publicity about Elon Musk and his innovator and his leading edge of things, but in the Lithium mining side is he falling behind and the Chinese have got a real perception that there could be a brewing supply crisis and they're dealing with it. What are your thoughts, Gen? My view has always been there is no supply crisis. The world is certainly well resourced with respect to Lithium. There's a supply chain bottleneck, which at the moment exists in China and it's the conversion capacity in China that's creating the shortage in the market. It's certainly not a supply of raw materials. I'll make one comment with respect to Elon Musk and the ability to take over companies further down the supply chain. I think to some extent his current position is driven by US politics and the fact that he has an agreement with two governments in the United States, the federal government and the state government of Nevada, that to a large extent compels Tesla to take many of those products from mine gate to motor vehicle. If you're going to do that in North America, someone tell me who the Lithium supplier is that you're going to take over. It's obvious that those couple of deals that he did early in the piece would have satisfied those requirements, but at the moment there aren't many people standing that you could take over to fill that space in North America. With respect to the Chinese and then being the smartest guys in the room, I think you've only got to look at the strategy with respect to the attack that they're having on the Australian Lithium industry and they really are everywhere and mergers and acquisitions aren't something that hasn't happened in the past or the recent past just ask Chris Reid. Chris has been involved in that sort of activity for some period of time and I can tell you Perth is a very small community and I can tell you it's full of Chinese people at the moment looking at Lithium operations. Tim, do you have any comments about what the Chinese are doing? I think one of the key things is there's two parts to your question. If you think about the Chinese and then Elon Musk and it sort of captures the bigger hole. Henry Ford used to own steel mills and then he realized that was stupid and he got rid of the steel mills and I think that the idea of Tesla owning a mining company or a mining operation is not going to happen. I think it's very obvious that there's some synergies there but I think the reality is it's not going to happen because there are plenty of people who are much better qualified to do it than an automaking company or a battery company to do it. It's sort of like asking, you know, Apple's not going to buy an aluminum plant because they use aluminum in their iPhones. So I think that the industry, at least industry observers have been looking in the wrong direction. The automakers, you know, obviously aren't, I think, the natural partner, bio partner, M&A partner for the Lithium industry. It's got to be more people who are involved in the mining space. Frankly, I don't think it's the usual suspects in terms of, you know, BHP and Rio Tinto and those guys. I think it's more of the fertilizer companies because they actually have, at least in the Lithium brine space, they actually have know-how when it comes to potassium and Lithium. So that's number one. The flip side, though, which may cause my prediction to be wrong, is the problem with all the guys in all of these companies is they're all really smart ex-McKenzie analysts and they have very little concept of, you know, supply and demand. There's the demand curve and supply curve and they meet somewhere and then there's a price and everyone's happy. They don't realize that supply can fall off a cliff. They don't really see that, that at a certain point at any price you're not going to get the Lithium you need. I can understand, Adrian here talking about that there's not a supply problem. I think in the long term there probably isn't a supply problem. I think in the short term there are some serious mismatches in terms of what people say they're going to do and what actually exists in the market today. You know, we have BMW, Mercedes-Benz, BYD, all of these guys building Gigafactories and I'll be damned if you can figure out where they're going to get the Lithium for all this stuff. So in the short term, when the McKenzie consultants and internal guys are saying, oh, it's not a problem.  You know, when I was in business school, commodities were poo pooed.  They don't realize that if it's not there, it's not there. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at it. And I think that's going to be the main surprise and challenge for the industry is how can we make sure that there isn't... We like supply deficits because they make prices higher. We don't like when supply deficits are persistent because then it makes people look for other things. Interesting that you mentioned Henry Ford there because of course Henry Ford built the steel plant. So I agree totally with you that he didn't really need to do it because the US was self-sufficient in iron ore production and had its own steel mills. That was not a problem for Ford. He just wanted to be vertically integrated so that he had 100% control of his process. But if we look then at Tesla, can Tesla really put their hands on their heart? Tesla or any of the auto manufacturers, I mean we're making Tesla a bit of a whipping boy here, but can they put their hands on the heart and say that they can be sure that they will be able to get as much lithium for the battery process? Which it's not of course Tesla that's making the batteries, it's Panasonic who are a tenant within the Gigafactory and if anything it should be Panasonic that is acquiring. But it's a corporate culture thing. Yeah not totally. Corporate culture is commodities or what you know commodities, commodities. But that's corporate culture that has risen since the 1970s. If you go back you would see the Goodyear for instance used to own rubber plantations so that it could make the tires out of them. So what's Goodyear wrong? When were Goodyear's best years? They were when it was a vertically integrated company. Now what is it? It's basically been run out of business or reduced in its market share to an also rep. So if you don't protect your supply chain and you rely upon new upcoming producers who as we can see from Neon Metals and from various other companies particularly Ganfeng going and doing deals with all over the place that the Chinese are going to have secured their supply. Tesla is relying on the power of prayer to get its supplies of lithium. It's just hoping that a tiny little junior somewhere and when it comes down to it we're looking at you know companies with you know two or three hundred million market caps are tiny in comparison to Tesla. That is the feat of playing of Tesla because they're relying upon really small companies that have very difficult fundraising situations as if these are guaranteed that these people will be able to get to the finish line and provide the product that they want. But let's move on from that there and let's have a look at the lithium exploration space and I mentioned before the rare earth space and of course in the rare earth space there were 300 companies 200 300 who knows you know the various numbers are bandied around. Can a panelist make a projection about and you know in broad numbers not specifics how many years in juniors does the market actually need considering that the 300 rare earth companies about now being reduced down to like 10 to 15. So how many years in juniors do we need? Let me just start. Yes please. Well I think the market will decide that at the end of the day. I think you're seeing a similar phenomenon as we saw with rare earths. I live through both as you know in that a lithium resource or occurrence of some consequence that might merit further exploration is not that hard to find. So an exploration company looking for a lithium asset to make a story around to do some promotion on race capital and do some exploration can find a lithium project to explore relatively easily just like we saw rare earth. So I suspect there'll be lots of companies will enter the game because the sort of cost of opportunity to get into it is not that great. They're easy to find early stage prospects and all over the world actually but there will be an inevitable shakeout down the road because there'll be it'll be oversupplied with exploration properties that many of which will will not merit further development going forward. Maybe that creates M&A activity later on. There'll be a few good ones obviously good discoveries that are made that will start to serve that market but I'm seeing kind of similar phenomena as we saw with rare earths although the big difference with rare earths compared to this lithium interest now is that there's much more substance to it in terms of there being a real supply-demand deficit that's creating the interest as opposed to it being mostly politics of China that created all the interest in rare earths 10 years ago. Kirill? Yes please if I may maybe to turn this conversation a little bit around and definitely we have already a lot of lithium wannabes and I call it lithium 2.0. First one we have around 2009-2010 when it was more than 100 companies searching for lithium but I would like to give you few numbers maybe still a lot of people missing it and number one will be why people missing because we have total disconnect between the potential value or necessity of lithium as a critical commodity for our energy revolution and amount of money available in the west for example in 2016 all lithium market by sales was just one billion dollars last December all lithium market by sales was just 2.5 billion dollars it's enormous growth but the market is so small and now I will throw you few numbers increase will be the best person to talk later what it takes to put lithium mine into production I will just give you top of my head let's say lithium americas just confirm feasibility study it will be 450 million dollar capix operation neometals again you can check this crease but any kind of spodiment production it takes you to put in place five to seven years with a very good help of god and investors and it will bring you north of half a billion dollars so we're talking about total disconnect in the west and unfortunately I have to send this message to everybody here that now we are at the total mercy of chinese companies and I'm not telling that it's better good but I think that a lot of people still getting into the Tesla stories they still only trying to understand how many cars will be electric I can tell you my personal message I think that all cars will be electric and it means total dramatic change at the moment according to different studies chinese actually controlling 70 percent of lithium hydroxide market in the world and this is the particular chemical which goes into Tesla batteries among two companies TNC and Genfeng they controlling majority of the 70 percent so when Tesla will wake up to this situation that actually NSA cathode is delivered to them still from japan even now even when they build this gigafactory I think unfortunately it will be too late because we have all these investors potentially here all analysts here but when you start to talk to the people and you throw in numbers the market is so small that it takes us all this time now almost 10 years from lithium 1.0 to lithium 2.0 when people can really allocate enough capital for all those juniors maybe now north of 100 in the world searching for the lithium and maybe only 10 of them will put something into production yeah that's an interesting point there because if we go back to the rare earth space again the within the the first two years of the rare earth boom there were very large capital raises and in the lithium space which was really a boom of 2016 we saw a mere fraction the amount of money that was raised in the the rare earth boom now of course as we know most of the money in the rare earth boom was actually lost um but there are companies out there in the lithium space who are going to be the next generation so we've got at the moment you know you've got the neometals you've got the galaxies you've got the nemasters uh the lithium americans etc or a coral reef that came out of the the third they're the children of the first lithium boom um who are going to be the children of the second lithium boom and um well there's a bit of a loaded question for our panels because of course they're going to think that they are um but um well talk more about the dynamic though um because there has been a lot less capital raised in this boom than there was back in the rare earth boom and it means that many companies in my perception um for instance uh we've we've had a lot of companies have been doing exploration light programs they haven't been doing the PEAs and the PFSs maybe they're not in a position to do them but there is a process where you do surface sampling you do drilling do more drilling um you do a PA you get a resource estimate then you move towards a PEA PFS blah blah blah um but you know some of these parts of the process take two three million dollars more for the drilling then to just produce a document like a PA can cost three million dollars would you not agree that's cheap okay so it's cheap um so they're going to need more money than that but are the companies being given the money to do the first steps the exploration and i saw last year a lot of lithium juniors were able to do raises of 200,000 300,000 500,000 that is sort of keeping the lights on money um it was not the type of money that would fund a really big program that would get you over the hill towards the PEA um would you like to comment on on how much money the space needs the junior space needs um to do these various phases um to uh to get towards um being the next generation in three four years from now of the subsequent um uh projects that are going to um be added to this this increasing demand because we know that these these projects in Australia and Latin America are you know going to be producing pretty shortly um but then they'll need to be you know more i'm not sure there does need to be more but uh if i if i can go back to the first part of your question a long ago Chris you've given a fairly extensive commentary there sorry about that and the question was do we need the the juniors there um and will we see many of them disappear i think the supply chain is such that you don't actually need them there and this is not touring mode book it's completely the opposite but i think if you if you look at the the structure of the industry you talk about things like idle capacity you've got to ask yourself why is there one mine at the moment producing 40 of the world's output on nine nine shifts of fortnight why don't they put on 14 shifts of fortnight or why don't they go to three shifts a day because it's not required you can't squeeze it through the system and i think um in addition to that one of those partners who will remain nameless has publicly said on numerous occasions that they will expand their output to such an extent that they will take up 50 percent of all new global demand now that operation is decorporatising that's going to a joint venture and if one partner takes 50 percent of all new demand how much does the other partner take when it's a 50 50 joint venture that's pretty easy they take the other 50 percent so there's there's a lot out there and do we need to add to it the answer is at the moment i believe no does that mean we don't need the juniors the answer that clearly is also also no because long term it's the juniors that produce all of the new opportunities the large companies don't do it no i guess the lithium market as has been said is actually a very small market in terms of total cash generated and it's not the normal modus operandi for a large company so it's not going to attract the anglos the bhp's we are probably an exception because of the the deposit that they've got in Serbia but that aside it's not the sort of industry that does attract those large companies and as a consequence that creates the niche for the juniors team yeah a few a few comments i mean one the financial markets are different since 2008 the world's changed and and we had a little bit of an echo situation between 2009 to 2012 the reality is that in general though the you know the the lawyer in Zurich or the doctor in london who would take out a mortgage in his house for half a million and put it into junior expiration because he'd make the spread between the more that doesn't happen anymore the money's gone and so you know the liquidity that was available for speculative play as a small portion of a larger portfolio of the world's investment appetite that's gone the world's completely different than it was not that long ago i mean all you got to do is look at how many you know look at all of the investment banks they're all downsizing because it's just that market doesn't exist anymore as far as the need for juniors you know there's definitely need for what what everyone in the industry fears is someone going out there raising a lot of money being really well promoted and then blowing up because that will discredit everyone else that's what i think we all are nervous about because the access to capital for no reason for no fault of our own will then you know basically dry up or be much more restricted but but barring that you know at the end of the day the reality is it's not 2007 anymore you know and as far as as you know the supply and demand situation everything else i have i used to be an equity analyst for many many years and i remember you know you would look at things and you'd be told a certain story and then you'd ask yourself questions where the answers didn't make any sense which meant that you're underlying assumptions that were probably wrong green bushes is 40 percent of the world's production right uh green bushes cash cost is a little over four thousand dollars a ton of lcd right what's lithium trading at nowadays even if we include they're going to block it in the long term prices and everything else significantly above four thousand dollars a ton so the question i ask myself is as far as i know everyone likes making money so are they not ramping up because it's some grand master plan that it doesn't make sense to me which which leads me to believe that they're not ramping up to the you know they haven't done it as fast as they could because they can't i think there's something there that that we don't know about because it doesn't make sense for me that if they're cash costs of four thousand dollars a ton lce and lce is trading at multiples of that that they're not going to eat into that and make money you raised a good point though that goes far beyond the the space of just lithium and that is there is a different scenario now there's a different landscape out there not just for lithium juniors but for all specialty metal companies and even beyond specialty metals into a in gold and other minerals that a certain category of investor has been either vaporized or retired or died or traumatized and they're no longer with us so we um we're now dependent upon a market that's um where where's the money going to come from to fund these juniors it's the same people it's just that whereas before maybe you had a roll of decks of a thousand now it's a roll of decks of two hundred you know uh it used to be you know you have multiple multiple mid tier investment banks with a desk of people running around on the phone raising they're all gone they're all gone i mean look go look at you know particularly in london i have a lot more experience in london in terms of those desks they're gone and you look in canada you know the the acquisitions the mergers that have been happening everything else has basically raised the the floor of a size of a deal that is now acceptable to a bank is a lot higher than it used to be because of the mergers and acquisitions in the banking industry so uh yeah it's a it's a different world i mean it's a completely different world let's not fool ourselves so um do we have any questions for our panelists on that on these two subjects of um m&a in the lithium space and um and uh which way the lithium explorers are going to go there's a question down there at the back i'm going to get right back over to you bob i just want to ask you christopher can you confirm was this a statement or a question tesla is relying on the power of prayer to secure uh their lithium yeah that's a statement one of the opening uh panelists has suggested that the conversion capacity is the bottleneck not the raw material or not access to the raw material i just wanted we can get a bit more color on that as to okay how much is the curve version capacity bottleneck is at 50 percent and how long would it take and i assume the bottleneck is in china maybe again how long to fix that up yeah let me say firstly that the only conversion capacity at the moment is in china um so it and really there aren't that many concentrate producers around the world at the moment that there are more coming on stream of course uh and i think china has the ability to build uh a new converter in about 18 months they're very quick at doing the year the construction work and they've they've dealt with the technology for a long period of time uh with respect to uh how much conversion capacity have they gotten how much does it constrain the market to some extent it depends on the the quality of the material that they feed um in that they have to downgrade capacity to some extent for uh concentrates that come from certain sources or have certain physical characteristics so most of the capacity is used but what's its utilization it's probably about 60 of what it was designed for simply because of the nature of the material but be that as it may most of it is being used um with respect to where the additional material may come from uh to fill capacity or generate new capacity uh i think we're looking at uh and i did mention the the decorporatization of uh green bushes and it's interesting because it's not a reporting entity anymore it's a little bit difficult to get information but uh we hear a lot on the local scene in western australia with respect to that and other operations and i think it's fair to say that they've started the increase in capacity as a consequence of tianchi building their lithium hydroxide plant uh at konana just south of perth that will be followed by albermal doing the same thing that looks like a doubling of capacity uh and if rumours are to have it right uh there's a lot more on the drawing boards perhaps uh there are people already to put the nuts and bolts together on the second expansion uh so there's a lot there and then the other producers coming on stream in western australia uh of course there's uh uh chris reeds material coming out of mount marion which has been very successful and really at the moment hasn't had a market impact because it's so new uh same applies to galaxy and pilbra and we have mineral resources doing almost the unthinkable and shipping so-called direct shipping or at 1.2 percent into china in vast quantities at the moment uh so there is plenty of capacity around and it will fill up the any surplus in those convert converters if they can squeeze more through but that's an interesting point you raised there because it sounds if the bottle necking was the bottleneck was in china before now some of the new plants have been built outside china solved that problem oh yeah and i think to some extent that's tax driven because of the uh the impulse put on uh chinese producers exporting lithium chemicals from china for the rest of the world and that impulse is pretty high and so if you can build a chinese plant outside china which tianchi are doing the qunana uh and sell into say korea japan uh north america wherever it may be but sell into a destination outside china uh you increase your profit margin enormously so it's not surprising that they're doing that more questions any other questions observations well i want to ask adrian a question adrian um you know lithium australia is really frankly one of the leaders for uh acquisitions for junior lithium exploration place on the planet can you tell me what we should anticipate as shareholders say in the next couple of quarters we're going to continue this uh aggressive strategy can you comment well yeah there are a number of facets facets to that and we have at the moment i think uh several projects in western australia one in northern territory three in queensland two in south australia uh one in mexico one in germany and six in canada so it's a fairly hefty portfolio most of that has been done by uh joint ventures and various types of agreements with with other parties we currently have a takeover bit on the table for uh lopitico which is another perth based company primarily technology organizer i i i want to see all the technology and to get back to the earlier panel i want to see all that technology under one roof so we no longer have just the first and second best we have one two and three so look forward to more on the the merger front there with respect to the the exploration we're currently drilling in uh mexico and that's on a lithium so-called clay deposit and for the geologists or technologists in the audience may i say that clays ain't clays necessarily and we don't quite know what the lithium's in but it's not in clay in the most part so they're interesting deposits and we're looking for a technical solution that's capable of processing those at lower cost and i think within the next few months subject to some changes in the the mining war in germany will start drilling there as well i'd like to thank our panelists for participating here today and um look forward to doing the individual presentations later on thank you


My fellow Americans, the scenes that the whole world witnessed this past weekend were among the most heart-rending in the long nightmare of Lebanon's agony. Millions of us have seen pictures of the Palestinian victims of this tragedy. There's little that words can add, but there are actions we can and must take to bring that nightmare to an end. It's not enough for us to view this as some remote event in which we ourselves are not involved. For our friends in Lebanon and Israel, for our friends in Europe and elsewhere in the Middle East, and for us as Americans, this tragedy, horrible as it is, reminds us of the absolute imperative of bringing peace to that troubled country and region. By working for peace in the Middle East, we serve the cause of world peace and the future of mankind. For the criminals who did this deed, no punishment is enough to remove the blot of their crime. But for the rest of us, there are things that we can learn and things that we must do. The people of Lebanon must have learned that the cycle of massacre upon massacre must end. Children are not avenged by the murder of other children. Israel must have learned that there is no way it can impose its own solutions on hatreds as deep and bitter as those that produce this tragedy. If it seeks to do so, it will only sink more deeply into the quagmire that looms before it. Those outsiders who have fed the flames of civil war in Lebanon for so many years need to learn that the fire will consume them too if it is not put out. And we must all rededicate ourselves to the cause of peace. I re-emphasize my call for early progress to solve the Palestinian issue and repeat the U.S. proposals which are now even more urgent. For now is not the time for talk alone. Now is a time for action, to act together to restore peace to Beirut, to help a stable government emerge that can restore peace and independence to all of Lebanon and to bring a just and lasting resolution to the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors, one that satisfies the legitimate rights of the Palestinians who are all too often its victims. Our basic objectives in Lebanon have not changed, for they are the objectives of the government and the people of Lebanon themselves. First and foremost, we seek the restoration of a strong and stable central government in that country, brought into being by orderly constitutional processes. Lebanon elected a new president two short weeks ago, only to see him murdered even before he could assume his office. This week a distressed Lebanon will again be electing a new president. May God grant him safety as well as the wisdom and courage to lead his country into a new and happier area. The international community has an obligation to assist the government of Lebanon in reasserting authority over all its territory. Foreign forces and armed factions have too long obstructed the legitimate role of the government of Lebanon's security forces. We must pave the way for withdrawal of foreign forces. The place to begin this task is in Beirut. The Lebanese government must be permitted to restore internal security in its capital. It cannot do this if foreign forces remain in or near Beirut. With this goal in mind, I have consulted with our French and Italian allies. We have agreed to form a new multinational force similar to the one which served so well last month, with the mission of enabling the Lebanese government to resume full sovereignty over its capital, the essential precondition for extending its control over the entire country. The Lebanese government, with the support of its people, requested this help. For this multinational force to succeed, it is essential that Israel withdraw from Beirut. With the expected cooperation of all parties, the multinational force will return to Beirut for a limited period of time. Its purpose is not to act as a police force, but to make it possible for the lawful authorities of Lebanon to discharge those duties for themselves. Secretary Shultz on my behalf has also reiterated our views to the government of Israel, through its ambassador in Washington. Unless Israel moves quickly and courageously to withdraw, it will find itself ever more deeply involved in problems that are not its own and which it cannot solve. The participation of American forces in Beirut will again be for a limited period, but I have concluded there is no alternative to their returning to Lebanon if that country is to have a chance to stand on its own feet. Peace in Beirut is only a first step. Together with the people of Lebanon, we seek the removal of all foreign military forces from that country. The departure of all foreign forces at the request of the Lebanese authorities has been widely endorsed by Arab as well as other states. Israel and Syria have both indicated that they have no territorial ambitions in Lebanon and are prepared to withdraw. It is now urgent that specific arrangements for withdrawal of all foreign forces be agreed upon. This must happen very soon. The legitimate security concerns of neighboring states, including particularly the safety of Israel's northern population, must be provided for. But this is not a difficult task if the political will is there. The Lebanese people must be allowed to chart their own future. They must rely solely on Lebanese armed forces who are willing and able to bring security to their country. They must be allowed to do so, and the sooner, the better. Ambassador Draper, who has been in close consultation with the parties concerned in Lebanon, will remain in the area to work for the full implementation of our proposal. Ambassador Habib will join him, will represent me at the inauguration of the new president of Lebanon, and will consult with the leaders in the area. He will return promptly to Washington to report to me. Early in the summer, our government met its responsibility to help resolve a severe crisis and to relieve the Lebanese people of a crushing burden. We succeeded. Recent events have produced new problems, and we must again assume our responsibility. I am especially anxious to end the agony of Lebanon because it is both right and in our national interest, but I am also determined to press ahead in the broader effort to achieve peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The events in Beirut of last week have served only to reinforce my conviction that such a peace is desperately needed and that the initiative we undertook on September 1st is the right way to proceed. We will not be discouraged or deterred in our efforts to seek peace in Lebanon and a just and lasting peace throughout the Middle East. All of us must learn the appropriate lessons from this tragedy and assume the responsibilities that it imposes upon us. We owe it to ourselves and to our children. The whole world will be a safer place when this region which is known so much trouble can begin to know peace instead. Both our purpose and our actions are peaceful, and we're taking them in a spirit of international cooperation. So tonight I ask for your prayers and your support as our country continues its vital role as a leader for world peace, a role that all of us as Americans can be proud of.


One of the lessons that you might say is the ultimate lesson too is that as you go higher and higher in states of mind you really start to get that that communication is not limited to the body and I think a lot of us either through being with people who have transitioned or in my case I was guided to go become a hospice volunteer and that really showed me that communication was not limited by the body because I was just there I went through like weeks of volunteer training and then when I finally got my chance to go and be on the hospice ward I was really deep into the course and I was having all these kind of mystical experiences with the workbook that was showing me all kinds of things really showing me transcendent states of mind and experiences and then I would go in day by day and as I would walk through the hospice ward they would give me like taking trays of food down to different people and everything I would take a tray of food and I'd start walking down the hallway and I would get called in to the rooms with in here you know and I'm like I think just going about my volunteer job but I'd go in there and I would have these powerful holy encounters where the spirit would just pour through me by invitation as I would just go where I was literally invited and I would go in there and the Holy Spirit would pour through me saying all kinds of things about you you did a great job thank you for everything you've done your family is so grateful you have no reason to feel guilty is just this you know well well done well done and you're innocent and a lot of it was just different teachings of pure innocence that's really what would pour through and then I would come out I would go take the food where I was going I kept getting called in day after day and and I had a very high checkout rate because they you know a lot of times with hospice people will hang on for a long period of time my checkout rate was really good I would I I basically cleared the ward you know because because it's death is a decision the transition the death is a decision and and people were just seemingly hanging on because of guilt you know they thought they let their parents down or they couldn't leave somebody behind and they were guilty guilty guilty and I was just there to serve and I was it was part of my phase of learning to let the Holy Spirit not only speak to me but speak through me which was a I was very shy when I was younger so that was a big one so it happened and then I come in and I'd say where's so-and-so and they checked out last night everything I oh yeah I just talked to them to okay clear the ward so you know it's all this stuff about healing the sick and raising the dead and I've had my experiences with those as well but I always loved the hospice ones for that particular reason because it was always a teach in guiltlessness teaching myself that I was sinless and I was guiltless and then seeing that people were reflecting that by saying I don't have to hang on to this earthly condition anymore I can get it I can see my innocence and that was the whole point of the whole thing anyway


We call this meeting to order of the City of Montpelier Development Review Board for Monday, November 4th, 2019. My name is Daniel Richardson. I serve as chair of the board. The other members for my right are Rob Goodwin, Kevin O'Connell, Meredith Crandall, staff, Kate McCarthy, Y Rock. Okay. The first order of business is approval of the agenda. There is one item of business, 81 North Street. The final plan review for a two-lot subdivision. Any additions to the agenda? If not, I will take a motion to approve the agenda as printed. So moved. Motion by Kevin. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Second by Claire. All those in favor of the agenda as printed, please raise your right hand. We have our agenda. There are no comments from the chair this evening. I will cover the fact that our next meeting is canceled under other business, though I just did. Review and approval of the meeting minutes from October 21st, 2019. Myself, Kevin, Kate, Rob, and Michael were present, so we have just enough to form a quorum. Do I have either a motion or any quorum? Let me start out. Any corrections to the minutes as printed? Hearing none, do I have a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Motion by Rob. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Kate. All those in favor and eligible to vote on the minutes from October 21st, 2019, please raise your right hand. And the minutes are approved. Good. That brings us to our first item of business, which is 81 North Street. The applicant, please step forward. And what I'll have you do is I'll have you introduce yourself, and then I'm going to put you under oath for your testimony purposes. Is there anyone else here who is here to testify on this application? So please state your name for the record. My name is Eric Stauffer. I'm the owner of 81 North Street, along with Sean Folks. My name is Eric Stauffer. I'm the owner of 81 North Street, along with Sean Folks. Thanks. It helps for a television audience, as well as these cameras are voice-driven. So they actually move around when people speak in their pickup by microphone. So if you raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under a pain and penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you very much. So why don't you just give us a brief overview of any changes that you've proposed? We've reviewed, as an initial sketch plan, this application. But if you've made any changes, either minor or significant, why don't you? There haven't been any major changes. It's been surveyed, reviewed comments from the sketch plan review, and then upon receiving notes back from the final application, and specifically the DPW notes that came back, I have a proposal here for the access. So just so I understand what you're proposing here is shared access. It's a single curb cut, but no easements involved between the two parcels. So there'd be one curb cut, basically from the property line on the lot one, there'd be 12 feet of access, and then from the property line, 12 feet of access on the lot two. Okay. And that looks like that would involve narrowing the existing curb cut. Correct. Curb cut for lot one is about 19, 20 feet wide, depending on exactly how you want to measure. And a lot of that is really the sweep on the right-hand side of how people have driven over it for the last number of years. So in the red line indicates there are seven feet that will kind of be infilled to close that up to the recommended 12 feet. And there is curbing that's there. It's asphalt curbing. I think on the backside there's an image that shows my tape measure next to the curbing. It's only a couple inches high right there. So I spoke with Kurt about what it would entail for me to do that curbing. He gave me a drawing of what it should look like, and it seems pretty straightforward to fill in that curbing and then infill behind it. There's grass there to narrow up that opening. So you'd build up at the asphalt curb along that seven foot? Correct. Okay. Yeah, we'd build up curb and then infill behind it to grass that in. Okay, so just so I understand the otherwise, apart from closing off and narrowing the curb cut, the driveway on lot one would stay the same, but then the driveway for lot two would take that same, the new 12 foot curb cut and would go in whatever direction it would. Yeah, there's really only one direction it could go, but yes, it would basically parallel. It could almost immediately start to peel off, but it would start at the same point. So I just realized that staff down in the office did not pull up the actual potential site plan in here for you that was in a larger print, so I'm going to go downstairs and grab that. Okay. Because I didn't realize that. So, okay. And I presume the updated site plan will specify it was not drawn right on there as well as set max and everything else. You can imagine our confusion on having that. But just so I'm on, this is somewhat of a different beast than what we've dealt with before in the sense that they're both, they're both driveway, I mean, there's, they're separate driveways. They're just a budding against each other as opposed to a shared driveway, but in between, is there likely to be any room for either like a hedge or some other type of visual blocker? That is shown in the site plan, which you're going to see momentarily, and what, when I had spoken with DPW, what they had thought would be smart was that that didn't start right out of the road, but started back X number of feet so that the person on the uphill side, lot two, could see up and down the road and vice versa, so the person on lot one could see up the hill and vice versa down the hill, so yes, not immediately at the curb, no, starting right 12, 18 feet back. Well, that would be my concern as well, I think, because one of the reasons why we have the shared driveway is that it cuts down, you know, even if, and as the DPW comments indicated, even having them five feet apart is less, less desirable because to merge that together so that only, you know, cars coming out of both lots at the same time are going in won't be competing with each other on the street or creating that traffic issue. It's a single sort of point of entry exit. So this document was submitted previously with the application. It should have been in your packets. What I'm going to suggest, and you can vary it, is to pass it around here and then have IRAC be able to have it to point to things and you can call to have it pulled up if you need it. So I'm going to start with Rob and then pass it down. I've never heard the term driveway curtain and your, this handout indicates that in addition to the physical changes below, a shared maintenance of driveway curtain clause will be added to the deeds. Can you tell me what a driveway curtain is? Well, those aren't my words either. It's not something I throw around regularly. But I driveway curtain, I would imagine, would be where those two driveways meet. And that, yeah, exactly. So the idea being that it's understood that both parties that these things, although they're on separate properties and individual and there's no easements on anybody's behalf, that there would be a meet, everybody who was responsible for where those two driveways met the road so that maybe one wasn't paved and the other was left possible eight feet deep in exaggeration. So I think that's what, what the words are. I would leave up to the, my lawyer in the actual writing of the deeds, but I think that driveway curtain is that shared space of the road. Okay. Good. Probably snow removal there too, so that you don't end up with it. Yeah, someone's not plowing on it. Yeah. Great. Okay. Thanks. Wait and see, Rob, you had a, two, did you have a question on about the one of the drawings? Go ahead. Yeah, I think it's just a smaller vision to the plot before you go to the mylar on that. Okay. The missing a dimension on the proposed lot line. Thank you, Rob, because I missed that when I reviewed it when it came in. Yeah. And then I guess one other thing, and I'm a little unsure about this, I don't even know if we're required to show setback lines on the plot, but it does appear that the setback on the existing house lot per a corner lot should be a side yard at five feet. Yeah. Yep. Nope, that's right. The I know I can talk to Richard Bell to make sure he understands it as well if you want, Eric, because yes, this right now he said it as the it looks like the rear instead of the side. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I was actually gonna make that same same point. I saw that same thing. You understand what we're talking about, which on lot one. Right now, there's a dotted line at the rear of the building really closest to lot to closest to lot two. And that's your setback there. But it seems to be drawn as if it was a rear yard setback but because that lot is on a corner, you don't really have a rear yard. And the way our zoning laws are, they treat the front on North Street as frontage, they treat the front on Ewing Street as frontage. And then this the the backside away from Ewing Street is side and the backside away from North Street is also side. So you have two sides and two fronts. So so I think you have which is I think a nurse to your benefit, which is this this is not rear. So it's not subject to the same rear setbacks that say lot two is going to face on the side opposite of Ewing Street. That is a true rear. And there's not the not that you would necessarily be building anything within that building envelope. But it does it should it should reflect that reality. Right, it should look more like the the one that's along. Excellent. And we're saying it's missing the prevention on the on the line the actual lock. And so just looking at this, I'm sorry, that's as long as I know I just it looks as if on your map, there is those little green balls are would be the hedgerow or between the two properties where the driveways have split as sort of a privacy, presumably so that the people on your lot one aren't staring immediately into the dining room with people in law to vice versa. Yeah. We'll come back to the landscaping. Are there any other questions and I realize Claire hasn't had a chance to look at the the drawing as well. But are there any other questions about the driveway? That's pretty straightforward. And I think, you know, my my read on this is that it does answer a lot of the TPW issues, the fact that it's cut down from the 19 feet to the 12 feet and 12 feet would satisfy the frontage questions that they had as a curb cut questions that they had. The there's no or is there any proposal as to what you're planning on building on lot two? There's not. Okay. It's frankly, I'm not sure whether I'm gonna hang on to it or I'm going to sell that. Okay, that's open, but you'd be looking to keep all options open with at this point. Yeah. And I will note that according to the staff notes that you know, there is a possibility that could be up to three dwelling units developed there. And that's an option you would like to have available. Is that correct? Yeah, from my perspective, absolutely. And that at least the staff, the staff's take on this is that that three units wouldn't three additional units would not cause undue adverse effect on traffic in the area. I would agree with that. I mean, it's obviously if you did create a three unit, there would have to be the requisite number of off street parking, particularly in a residential neighborhood like this Ewing Street, I don't know how wide it is formally if it's three rods or less. But there was seasonal off street parking being an issue and a factor. I think it would be important that there be off street parking for all three units. Wouldn't think to do otherwise if I had it that direction. Yeah. So we just have to and I think we've actually done that. So under 3505 a which talks about the design design configuration of parcel boundaries partial arrangement, particularly subsection a one I one B, which talks about the neighborhood is primarily a single family residential neighborhood with homes fit into the terrain. Most with a compact development footprint proposed land development may feature a modest increase in residential density accomplished primarily through conversion of existing buildings to multifamily occupancy and with a limited amount of infill on suitable sites. So I think we have to make a determination as to whether allowing this or you know, whether we need to put an affirmative condition on how many units can be built there knowing that the zoning bylaws allow up to three. But if we felt that there was a compelling reason to limit that to less than three, I don't see there to be a compelling reason why it limited. I don't either I think that the parking limitations for one will dictate the appropriate use of the site. I also think it's conceivable that you could put a house the same size as the existing house 81 right next to it and that very easily be a three unit dwelling which is I think what 81 used to be right with the three units. I don't know if it was ever officially three units. In formal three. Yeah. So I see this is this is a suitable approach to infill even if it is up to three units. And I'm not proposing up to as a limit that this board would place. Right. I would agree. I mean, I'd see no no need to limit what the zoning allows. Obviously, once a plan was developed, then it would be reviewed and scrutinized at that time for its design characteristics. But three three units that that's in keeping with where we want to go. Okay. So the next issue is is about the utilities. And could you explain you've had some conversations with GMP as to what they can offer. Yes, for utilities at the site. So what they suggest I spoke with Lauren Kelly, who's the representative for GMP for development for this area. And her suggestion was, there's a power pole that's at the corner of that lot and the one that's just uphealing street from from it from current 81 north. And there's a guy pole that is along that boundary. It's about halfway back to progress line which shows up on the survey. Which you suggested was replacing at GMP's cost the pole at the street running power overhead to the pole that is along halfway back that plot line. And then either going underground or overhead from that point. Her, her logic was basically there's already a pole there. There's already a guy wire there. Neither of those go away, no matter what. So you might as well run the power overhead along that existing our corridor. And then the difference between them dropping down and going underground the house close likely based on the shape and size of the lot is going to be very close to that phone call. And so they're not really creating any visual or other impact by just doing a aerial drop to the house from that point wouldn't be we practically unseen. So that was her feedback. Was there any did she discuss any of the price price differentials? She was running through numbers pretty quickly. And it was pretty quick phone conversation. But yeah, she thought that the price differential between the two would be over $2,000. I think that's indicated in the thing. And that was the between the cost of GMP's work as well as an electrician and somebody to run the power underneath underneath and back now back up. Yeah, you got it. Not necessarily from that short pole. And I think most of that cost was coming from the road to the current guy pole. There was a difference going from that whole pathway back the lot line overhead versus going down and underground, which is a lot longer to travel. And so there was a cost difference there. But that cost difference to be clear is the $2,000. That makes sense. Did I say that clear? Not necessarily. Okay, so I ended from what I got, I understood that the $2,000 difference was running overhead from the guy to the house versus running under. Yeah, so but you're saying it's $2,000 to run? I believe and I can be wrong, I should talk with Lauren again to clarify about it. But my I think that difference was from the road, not from the guy pole. So presumably the difference between above ground from the guy pole and below ground from the guy pole would be less than 700 bucks, 800 bucks something along those lines. Yeah. But once again, that house is probably gonna be within just a handful of feet from the guy from the guy pole. So the main the main difference between running the power underground or aerial from the guy pole itself isn't really an economic it's more of a practical I mean, dollars are dollars. So 700 bucks or 800 bucks, whatever that difference is sure. But yes, that that's not from the guy pole wasn't a huge consideration. I mean, that's if we were to put that condition on that's not the financial breaker that's a $2,000 would represent potential of greater hardship. No, no, I don't think economically no from a practical perspective, right, just a lot simpler and more straightforward to do it with. No, I understand I just want to make sure that we as a board understand the two drivers for those because I think there's two decisions there. One is, you know, do we require the utilities to run from the pole at the street? Or do we and if not, then do we require the utilities from the guy wire to run underground and then back up or just simply an aerial drop over? Can I just step in briefly just reminder? In case you didn't read this really carefully that the standard that we're weighing this by has changed since the sketch plan that it's not just a physical condition issue, but that you can also opt to not have utilities located underground where the subdivision is in a section of street with existing above ground utilities and burial would not be practical. So it's a new standard language that's new language that took effect October 16th. So that's new language. And I just wanted to make sure that we kept that in mind. I think that's a very good reminder. And I think that's where I was going with this as well, because I think they're two different decisions. And given the practical language in the newly revised statute that certainly indicates that we should be looking at practical considerations, not just simply running underground because we have to or want to. But what's most practical? Any other questions on the utilities or? All right. One of the last issue was approximately two more. So let's go back to the landscaping. Just so I understand the nature of the lot as it sits today. There's there doesn't appear at least in the photographs to be a lot of trees or shrubs on the lot looks like lawn open. You're proposing to add shrubs what any particular size, style? I hadn't gone that deep, mostly because that lot hasn't really, whether it's going to be somebody single family home or somebody develops it me or someone else's three unit place. And I think there's enough gray area there as to what's going to happen with it. I wasn't going to propose a specific shrub or size or spacing. I think that would maybe more come with application for the whatever gets built there down the road, the specifics thereof. I can see having some flexibility at the same time. I mean, I think it's really important, you know, given the proximity of these houses that there be some type of vegetative shrub there. And I mean, I think you see that as well with your plans to put it in there. And while I don't necessarily want to lock your hands on that, because obviously changes where you're putting the shrub, I mean, where you're putting the building. You know, would, would you be amenable to some requirement when lot two is developed that it includes some type of screening hedge between lots between the buildings on lots one and two. Yeah, I mean, I think that's what's in this in the plan. I don't know if the screening hedge means a specific thing or not. Yeah.   But I do think that it if I'm understanding correctly, you're looking to plant some sort of privacy screening hedge between or plantings that would create that buffer. I think that's nicer than a fence. But either thing is I think I'd honestly like to leave it flexible because a fence may ultimately be preferred by both property owners and may factor in more smoothly to any overall landscaping plan. So I wouldn't want to tie the hands of anyone into the future. We do have a staff suggestion, similar to what we've done with other subdivision approvals, where we say that requiring we would require a landscaping plan be included in the subsequent zoning permit application that meets the requirements of section 3506.f. And landscaping, I believe can include sensory or shrubbery. So I'd like to leave ourselves those options. Did you did you say sensory I'd like to neologism. recommendation. I mean, the advantage of offensory is that it can simply be one dimension. If it's if it's five feet high, it stays five feet high. And it's it's with this. It's also determined, you know, determined by the type of fence that's split up, whereas a hedge has to be maintained. It can be two feet today, and it can be 20 feet tomorrow. And have the opposite effect that what you're trying to accomplish, or have the bottom completely eaten out depending on what shows up. That's correct. That too. No, that's a fair those are all fair points. I mean, I think my point is just really that this is clearly a site where and what I want to make sure is identified that there there needs to be some type of buffer. You know, in impart, I think it's with keeping with the character of the neighborhood, but it's also keeping with the idea that, you know, these these houses would be relatively close to each other, and creating some visual breakup between house driveway driveway house. So I'm I'm certainly open to, you know, having that in using language as we've used before, requiring a landscape plan when the actual building is going to go up to give you the flexibility of sensory shrubbery or otherwise. Good. I appreciate that flexibility. I live up the street in the general neighborhood on a 10th of an acre lot next to a 10th of an acre lot next to about a third of an acre lot. And I've only lived there five years, but I've kind of seen the neighbors evolve their yards in ways that are comfortable with corner plantings and this and that. So I think that I think that the privacy will ultimately be achieved within and that the 3506.f requirement is ends up being a nudge in that direction. So the last issue I think we need to discuss is whether or not the proposal is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. I guess I'll just throw it out there. I'm not hearing anything from anyone so far that would indicate the opposite. This is a higher density neighborhood and this would be in keeping with it. Looking at some of the lots that are nearby, we're not creating two small lots where everyone else has larger states or big swaths of land. It's close to downtown. It seems to be the proposal is from residential development, which would be keeping with character in the neighborhood or at least there's no there's no, sorry, let me take that back. There's no proposal for what use it will be other than that it be consistent with use of the neighborhood and creating this this lot in and of itself. The creation of it is not different than any other lot in this neighborhood. Is that a fair summary of other people's thoughts? Yes, good. So just swooping back to the issue of the utilities. Does anybody have a concern with allowing him allowing the applicant to have a utility that would run from the guy wire? Either aerial or underground, whatever they saw fit and was most practical? Yes. No, no, no, yeah, no, it's consistent with green. I knew what Kevin was speaking to everybody. All right, any other questions or concerns from the board? I'll take a motion if anybody would like to make one on this application. And just to be clear, neither of you are wishing to add any further to the good. Anything further? No, thank you. Mr. Chair, I move approval of final subdivision subdivision review at 81 North Street with as presented the application dated October 7 2019 subject to the following conditions of approval. As we've just discussed any application for a zoning permit for further development of lot two shall include a landscaping and screening proposal meeting the requirements of section 3506.f. And then our standard condition with requiring the recording of the final survey plat in the land records office revised per Rob's comments, revised dimensions on the lot division line and the setback for business is discussed. Sorry, friendly amendment. Correct. And appreciate it. Or maybe reminder, I don't think I can officially make an amendment. Okay, so I will I will add with that reminder, the adjustment to the plat as suggested by Rob, which involves the turning the rear setback of lot one into a turning the side setback of lot one into a rear. Turning the rear stuff making it five feet and labeling the length of the boundary line between the lots one and lots two that are created by this subdivision motion by Kate. Do I have a second? You do. Second by Kevin. Any further discussion? I'll simply add just to further clarification. We're understanding that this would allow the utilities to run either above or underground as the applicant has requested. Yes. Thank you. I had a question about what other utilities would have to be depicted on the the plat? The utilities don't have to be on the plat. They were just on the potential same. Gotcha. All right. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. You have your subdivision review subject to our final written decision that will be issued soon. And then of course, there's a 30 day window of which someone can take an appeal. However, judging by the fact that no one is here contesting it, you can take that under advisement and play your risk pool as you submit. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I will send an email tomorrow to you and Richard Bell summarizing what needs to change on the final plat so that that can get you know, get moving. We don't have any contentious here going on in this decision. Good. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thanks. Great. Other business. I will simply note that as I did before the November 18th DRB meeting is canceled because of lack of applications. So we all get an early Thanksgiving vacation. The next meeting regularly scheduled is December 2nd, 2019. Do we have any applications for that? Not currently. We'll see what comes in by Friday. Okay. So we may see each other before the holiday season. If not, well, no, yeah, there's two December meetings. Okay, okay. Back on one. I know that the meeting schedule. Is this available online? You know what? I don't even know if that's on the website. I bet it is. If not, I will make sure it is. It has been in the past. I haven't looked recently. I don't know if I got this up there yet, but I'll check. Sometimes they have a more advanced calendar system now. So it may be buried within this. However, you know, I mean, I just know for everyone that we have the our upcoming 2020 DRB schedule which shows the various days that will be meeting on Mondays or the days because of holidays that will have to meet on Tuesdays, which are only three next year. Yeah. And I think this is also particularly useful because it sort of shows the application deadline and the date that the meeting needs to be warned publicly in relation to the design review committee and our meetings. So that could be interesting to anyone who's just trying to follow the process of having this whole PDF up there somewhere would be grand. Yeah, I think in past, Audra hasn't necessarily wanted all of that up there. But yes, we can put it up there. I mean, we always have it in the office of anybody else as well. But yeah, we are trying to we are trying to make we're in a process of making edits to all the committee websites and the planning department website to make things more applicant friendly and more informational and a little more track of some plans for some frequently asked questions, pages and things along those lines and more, you know, potentially even some videos when it comes to design review, things like that. Great. Great. And I think we'll add this to the next for the applicants and for anyone else who agrees. Yeah. Thank you. Anything else? Any further business? All right, I will take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Motion by Rob. Second. Second by Kevin. All those in favor of journey, please raise your right hand. And we adjourn. Thank you all very much for participating.


Hello, this is Steven Nesheva, and I'm going to expand a little bit on what we can do in Spartan. In this case, what we're looking at is finding ways to tell how much two atoms or two molecules are attracted to each other and by what strength. So the way we've set this up is I've got two argons here, and they are already in the space filling model, as I can kind of confirm there. And so I know that there are about, well, about almost four angstroms apart, because I've already done a minimization to confirm that. I'm going to click on this icon here, and press again on this minimizer, and once that's done, and we can see that the energy between them is about minus a half kilojoules per mole. So the question is how much energy does it take to pull them apart? Well, and the way that we can do that is I'm going to go to this distance icon here again, and select the two argon atoms. And over here, we found before that it, I think, takes at least 10 angstroms, is enough to take them away from their interaction range. So I'm going to enter that, and so now there are 10 angstroms apart, and I'm going to do this energy minimizer again. And I can see that, yep, the energy, they're not being attracted to each other, so they must be out of range, and Spartan is telling me that the energy of interaction now is zero. So if you think about it, to go from a negative number up to zero, that's how much energy it took to pull them apart. So we could say that the energy of attraction between two argon atoms must be a half a kilojoule per mole. And we can do this for other molecules and atoms just as well.


Just having a 50 ball in the NBA game, does that give you kind of, you know, kind of sticking it to the teams like Toronto, New York that had you?  I would say, yeah, but for more, more for me is just for myself, to be honest, just kind of showing myself that I know I can do some of those things. I don't think it's a fluke in any way. So I think for more, it's just proven to myself that I know I belong and I can do some things here.


what's up creators in today's video I'll be showing you how to shoot a product video at home using something simple as your iPhone so that you can take your mobile filming to the next level to create something like this roll that video so sandmark a brand from California that specializes in photography products for iPhone reached out to me and asked if I would want to join the shot on iPhone challenge I said hell yeah bro well I didn't say it that way but anyway they hooked me up with their film edition lenses and pro light to shoot an iPhone commercial with my iPhone X now I will be showing you the behind-the-scenes of how I created this video we'll be looking at camera setup camera settings lighting material and movement now I don't have a studio that is why I do most of my product video shoots at home the challenge was to do an iPhone commercial and those commercials generally tend to use animations and 3d models now I'm not specialized in that so I had to find a way to film and edit it like it would look in a real iPhone commercial my goal was to achieve a sort of mixture between sci-fi and high-tech and I think it came out pretty well so before we hop in you'll find all the products in the video description below if you're interested let's first look at our camera setup I use the iPhone X with the Filmic Pro app I highly recommend using the app because this will give you full control over your camera for the lens I use the telephoto lens edition by Sandmark that allows me to zoom in twice as much without any quality loss this is important for showing off details of the product you generally want to avoid digitally zooming in with your iPhone since it will reduce the quality of your video make sure to clean the lens before you start filming to keep the iPhone in place I used a smartphone holder which I got with the Sandmark film rig and mounted it on a tripod foot this allows me to easily position the camera to power my iPhone I used a power bank because iPhones tend to use a lot of battery when shooting video let's now look at our camera settings most of the shots were taken in 4k 25 frames per second 4k has more detail and allows me to crop in without losing any quality as for the Kodak I use the Filmic Xtreme which gives me the highest quality possible for these shots I use the 239 by 1 aspect ratio with the crop source overlay turned off I recommend turning it off because it gives you the framing guide and records the full frame area outside the guides in post I can still add the letterbox to give it that wide cinematic look make sure to turn off image stabilization if you have your iPhone on a tripod make sure to lock your wide balance in order to avoid color shifts for the color picture I use log V2 which gives me the most dynamic range in my video next you want to open up manual controls to adjust the ISO and shutter speed smartphones don't do well in low light situations because of their small sensor and tend to quickly produce noise that's why I keep the ISO as low as possible and use external lights to adjust the brightness make sure to use the histogram to not over or under expose your image my shutter speed is set to 1 over 50 that gives me that I don't want to say it but that's cinematic look everybody's striving for when it comes to focusing you generally want the entire product to be in focus now on smartphones you don't get a lot of shallow depth of field unless you have the object really close to the lens with as much distance between it and the background for this video I use the autofocus I usually set the focus point and lock it afterwards I find the autofocus on the filmic pro does a really great job now you can also manual control it by bringing up the sliders for the material I used a wide acrylic background which I thought would work well with the iPhone 11 Pro now it's important to use a glass cleaner with a microfiber cloth to get rid of stains and fingerprints this can really be your best friend what I also found useful was using an air blower to get rid of the dust to make the iPhone 11 Pro stand I mounted a holder at the very bottom of it as for the lighting what I did is I mounted the aperture 120d on a C stand to get a soft top-down lighting I attached a honeycomb grid to bring the object more in focus especially for the product shots you want to use a big source of light to make the product look more appealing I then darkened the room around it to have a more controlled lighting environment next up is movement now that we have everything set up we can start making our product come to life this is an experimental process where you have to try different things out for a lot of shots I used a wide motorized turn table this was really helpful for having the product rotate smoothly the revealing shot at the beginning was done using the Pro light by Sandmark I darkened the entire room and move the light with my hand to create those highlights which really gave the product a dramatic effect you can really play around with it and see what works now I wanted to have a shot where the iPhone was levitating for this effect I filmed the iPhone that was laying on top of an object I then removed the objects and filmed just the background also known as a clean plate in post I overlap both mask the iPhone out add a shadow and motion to it one of the more difficult shots was the water splashing effect the first shot didn't work out because I wanted the water to splash upwards and not sideways so I then place the iPhone closer to the edge of the table took the two glasses of water and simultaneously through the water in the air the results were pretty epic this shot was obviously done in slow motion the settings I used was 1080p at 240 frames per second and if you're shooting with a higher framing you need to add more light so I added two tube lights to brighten up the image as you can see you don't need a studio space or spend a lot of money creating these type of videos just do it in your house with these simple equipments the more you do it the better you get at it if this video helped you in any kind of way leave a thumbs up and let me know in the comment section below what you think of this video once again I would like to thank Sandmarc for hooking me up with their awesome product if you haven't subscribed to this channel please do so you would help me immensely I upload videos every week and we are soon reaching two thousand subscribers so thank you for all of your support if you want to learn more about mobile filming I have two videos are right here ready for you to watch thanks again for watching and I will see you in the next video