. >> 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 particular section set that in every other cross section of the building a right angle to the center line of building set such point shall be taken of the average of the ground elevation of either side of the building of building steps at the cross section. the reason is because a slope that is not necessary and in fact they usually do not go on a straight line b

. >> 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