d.r. requesters. but through the chair, the d.r. requesters both d.r.questions will have a total time of five minutes and product sponsor will have a total time of five minutes. >> then we'll take public comment whether you're supportive supportive opposed to the project after the comments. >> and so, commissioners, if i may briefly describe a bit of the posture of this permit. it's different, we've had thees situation notice poos, but in this case the permit was issued by the -- we did not do a bbn notification on file for the property at that time. we subsequently suspended the permit and it was given to the board of a appeals. it's pending before the board nks month. we wanted to bring this matter to you as the d.r. request was filed during the bbn period that we did after the permit was issued. we wanted to get your feedback on the project and we'll take that to the board of appeals when it is heard next month. i wanted to reassure you that the decision of the commission today will be implemented and we'll find a way to work with the project spons w

d.r. requester. you can do the overhead. pull the mic towards you so we r you. >> my name -- thank you very mu, chris, we agree with you. 13 households in the immediate neighborhood are party to the d. many other neighbors are concert the project and the precedent is for the neighborhood. my husband and i live here. downhill from the property thate barometric pressure barometric g about today. i became involved with the projn 11511515. >> i'm active in enabled groupsa . a bit about our neighborhood. due to the immediate proximity n the city. we're near golden gate park. of the 54 homes, 38 are designee same architect. they're designed to max mime lih is very important in the outer . and we love and depend on our cr patios for the light. the most recent decision said te massing of the third floor vertl decision including the roof is inconsistent with the existing neighborhood character. when comparing the plan tots ch, with regard to the -- does the topography respect the surroundg areas? no. is the height and depth capacit?

request for hearing that was regarding window placement. you heard the item and upheld the decision on that permit to alter. and now there's been a d.r. filed on that application. so it will be going to the planning commission in the new year. that concludes my comments unless you have questions. >> on 56 mason, is that the one there was a lot of community concern about? >> correct. >> this is in response to the member of the public that spoke about ceqa. i wonder if we could get an update of where we are with the citywide survey. >> certainly. we can schedule that in the new year. >> thank you. any further questions? >> item 3, president's report and announcements. >> commissioner wolfram: i have no formal report or announcement. but we will be hearing item 8, first item in the regular calend calendar, so before item 6. >> item 4, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner wolfram: i have a disclosure. which is on item 5, 920 north point street, the client is client of our firm, but not in project. >> all matters listed under consent calendar is considered to be routine by the historic preservation commission and may be acted