merchandise at the market all at once without new money coming in, and we can have a very rude awakening. it s not necessarily easy to see especially on a day like this one. dow did not keep points, .08% and nasdaq lost .95% sometimes the new supply is as invisible. we heard from beyond me, the revolutionary plant based companies that makes faux ha hamburgers, the stock got annihilated, down 22% today. i happen to love beyond meat the company. ceo ethan browns stands for a clever concept the idea is that cows are a terrible delivery system for protein, they add fat and cl cholesterol spewing methane all over here right to your plate, not here, the cow and then your plate. got it beyond meat s product is far from perfect but it s a legitimate disrupter of the $1.4 trillion meat industry. growth is staggering, their sales have more than tripled they re already turning a profit if beyond meat keeps growing at that pace, you can argue it deserves to be a multibillion dollar compa
keeping hard copies of jobs that go out in terms how long they keep those physical documents. i haven t had a chance to request that. because it appears that the transmittal of information from the planning department to repo mill were correct. that is the only kind of area that we haven t been able to explore thoroughly yet. i want to follow up the 3/11 notice has a description that referenced a four story project. it definitely referenced the newer plans. they are not what the old plans were, as mentioned. thank you. commissioners the matter is submitted. time is over. i will start. one, it is really difficult to hear a case just orally, and that is why briefs are submitted and had certain questions been asked maybe some of those could have been answered here this evening. other than that, i feel that this is a conforming project. it has gone on a long time there. are no exemptions, no rare variances required. i feel a reason to deny the appeal and accept the proj
notice has a description that referenced a four story project. it definitely referenced the newer plans. they are not what the old plans were, as mentioned. thank you. commissioners the matter is submitted. time is over. i will start. one, it is really difficult to hear a case just orally, and that is why briefs are submitted and had certain questions been asked maybe some of those could have been answered here this evening. other than that, i feel that this is a conforming project. it has gone on a long time there. are no exemptions, no rare variances required. i feel a reason to deny the appeal and accept the project as it is. so if those plans if the correct plans would have been sent out, and that is the big thing in this conversation tonight, if those plans, the right plans would have come out and there would have been a community uproar on those plans for the reasons that have been also mentioned tonight, which is primarily the fourth floor and some view qua
i did review the 311 notice and the plans that were provided by the neighbor. it was clear that the notice itself was the new notice from 2017. it clearly stated it was going to four stories. the plans that they have are the old plans from 2013, 2014. i have no way of knowing if those are the plans that were included with that notice last year because those plans were only dated as to when they were, you know, drawn by the designer. not when they were mailed out or included in the 311 packet. so i can t corroborate that is the those are the actual plans that were sent with that 311 notice, whether that s the truth or not. all i do know that issue was not raised in the appeal. it was not raised in a brief. it has not been raised by any neighbors to our knowledge to either the project sponsor or the department staff. that includes potentially being raised by the neighbor to the north who originally dred the project and chose not to dr it based on revised plans. in order to
responsive letter saying i approve if you look at the plans that were in 2002 the date of the letters i m talking about i ll see that the plans submitted then are do not interfere at all with the windows of she had antenna active ear window blockage would not have been a concern i want you to know collateral to this appeal other concerns are water leakage. the other question where this window exists is there a tenant. at this time it was a tenant and the tenant didn t have concerns. that s correct that s my understanding. okay. we ll hear from the permit holders council now. madam president and members of the board of panel i m joseph i represent the residents in this action first, i d like to respond there is no tenant in that window that is a hallway window a third year hallway with that said, window of a rental noted blocking any tenants verify whatsoever and i ve been advised by the architect and contractors that property line windows don t have rights of use my