they do have as part of the horizontal expansion, the expansion of the dwelling unit upstairs. that is something susceptible to discretion. the permit was noticed around section 311 for pretty much the month of january. their 30 days expired in early february 2019. there were no discretionary views filed. this was brought to our attention more recently by the appeal of this permit and appreciate the appellant's brief and showing there was an existing legal unit there. we did find given that is the case that needs to be shown on the plans and that wasn't. so we did have the permit holder submit resized plans. we received those last week. they're also there before you in your hands. they were also submitted to the appellant. we reviewed these to be submitted with the planning code. they don't need to file under a planning provision. they can legalize with this. we are obligated to approve this permit if it meets the requirements of the planning code. they've gone through the a.d.u. process and there's been some issues raised about the existing tenant but that is a separate issue

and the plans from what they do show which doesn't show the horizontal expansion at the rear it does seem to be accurate. i mean, you can look at the section on sheet a 3.0, you can see there's not really a significant amount of excavation. they are showing new foundation and flat. but it's not an extensive amount of excavation given this is san francisco and we have hilly terrain and we have seen projects where you see the iceburg houses and they are excavating rooms and basketball courts under the houses. not significant excavation there. in regards to short term rental we don't have any active complaints on short term rental. but there is nothing against the law of having three people or five people living unrelated in the home. that's my time. if you have other questions i can answer them. >> sorry. on the subject given this is our last bite at the apple because once we -- if we were to approve this permit tonight, that's all, folks unless it was a major change in scope. given the fact that plans, the final plans whatever that is, were presented to you only two days ago. >> i rec

allow horizontal additions and there is, you know, the potential for maximizing density , we will want another unit. there's something about this that strikes me wrong, of permitting this expansionwithout legalizing this unit, which had been a unit in the past, even if it hadn't been legal. that is one thing that bugs me. the things that i heard from the d.r. requester are not outside the scope of what we have done in this commission when it comes to privacy of roof decks, specifically, and it seems like these are modest things. it is 1 foot in the light well. and then, you know, the roof deck, the firewall also seems like a pretty modest request. so i am ready to grant d.r. and add at least some of these things. it doesn't seem like it is such -- it is outside of what we have done before in this commission during d.r. i would like clarification about the policy on unauthorized a.d.u.s. that is important to me. >> yeah, so from the department standpoint, we have done our due diligence. when we suspect an issue on an authorized dwelling unit, we have -- we sent a screening form to the project sponsor who silence an affidavit. we can't go on here -- we can't go on hearsay, with al