Become to the meeting of the board of appeals. Item no. 7 has moved. We are going to hear item no. 8. Item 8 appeal no. 13036 chine hui, appellanttss vs. Dept. Of building inspection, respondent planning dept. Approval 865 el camino del mar. Protesting the issuance on march 14, 2013, to Jennifer King timothy fredel, permit to alter a building demolition of existing solarium on roof; interior renovation; replace existing windows as needed; repair and replace exterior shingles as necessaryy. Application no. 2012 02 06 3645s. Public hearing held on may 22, 2013. For further consideration today. Note matter continued to allow time for the planning dept. To recalculate the height of the subject building; additional briefing is allowed. 1234 with the president s consent we can give 3 minutes to each side starting with the appellant. Is the appellant in the room . I saw her here earlier. Good evening commissioners. I would like to start with this process. We started with this data after all of these months at the appellants insist. I just wanted to walk you through the calculations. The height calculations start at the top of the curb which is 184 and you go up 30 feet and over at a 45 degree angle by 5 feet and as weve discussed with several planners there is an allowance for a jump to the count it average grade at a maximum of 35 feet. That is starting at 221. 52. According to the revised plans that have been submitted, the project applicant has drawn this 2. 268 that does not follow the average flow of 58 percent. The average slope should follow this red dotted line whereas under with this additional 68 percent is jumping up by one point and using different data point to the data calculation. We have determined that the varying points take into account the average grade but add an additional 35 feet which is not what the planning code permits, its the very starting point. It should follow a parallel line back. The result of this erroneous application is twofold and has far reaching it packets. With the respect to this project, it has the allowable height limit by a foot. The project needs to be scaled back or adjusted accordingly or the applicant would have to apply for a height variance. As the larger over arching policy point, this could set a dangerous press precedent fought height. We propose that tht over than what is exceeded over the code. Based on your calculation, what is the dimension at the front wall to your red line . So, the dimension at the front wall, do you mean where the property started . Where the proposed fourth floor addition starts . Im assuming thats the proposed fourth floor exterior wall that you are pointing to right now. That one. On top of members of the commission, sam kwaung, on top of the no disagreement with the 5. 2 of both sides of the building, that will be another increase of a foot and 2 inches. That was not my question. My question is from the third floor, to the red line at that exterior wall is what dimension . It would be six foot two inches. Okay. Thank you. 6 foot 2 inches. Okay, miss barclay. Good evening members of the commission. The problem with the appellant calculation is that they totally ignored section 102. 12 c of the planning code which defines height. What it says is the height limit as you start in this case we start with the legislative setback which would go up 30 feet and the 45 degree and up, but then this