203, 207, and to 15 los palmos. this was a new construction project on subdivided lots, and the planning commission heard the project about a year ago now. the building permit was originally submitted three years ago. the neighborhood notification went out two years ago. there was a dr file then heard by the commission last year. the commission unanimously upheld the project, finding that was contexture with the district. very modest three single-family dwellings. no variances were required for any of the work propose. after the commission approved it, we approved the subdivision. the subdivision was appealed to the board of supervisors. the board of supervisors unanimously upheld the subdivision. building permit was subsequently issued an appeal to the board of appeals. it was scheduled at the beginning of january. a few days prior to the appeal, the ceqa appeal was filed and heard by the board of supervisors in march. that was unanimously upheld by the board of supervisors. so we went to the hearing last night at

subject properties at 207, los palmos 3 permits to erect three- story single-family houses.one with 1240 square feet, one with 1303, 1 with 1304 square feet. we will start with the appellants. you have seven minutes per a. >> i would want to thank the board for hearing our appeal. i know that we're supposed to center around quality of life issues, and i will do that. at the first outset, despite reassurances to the contrary, putting four homes on a lot where one home exists now, and that the statutes that exist, the zoning, it is legal. to the point, though, i like to speak to the fact that the three east lot or shaved -- they were shaved a few inches to accommodate the fourth lot. i have the drawings on file with the planning commission that recalculating. after calculating the area of all of those lots, that fourth what appears to be legal by one square foot. a lot minds of the three easterly lots were shaved in water to make that fourth lot legal. -- the lot lines of the three easterly lots were shaved in order to make that fourth block legal. they are one zone, but one p

the second item was 203, 207, and to 15 los palmos. this was a new construction project on subdivided lots, and the planning commission heard the project about a year ago now. the building permit was originally submitted three years ago. the neighborhood notification went out two years ago. there was a dr file then heard by the commission last year. the

commissioner borden: can you explain -- i'm talking about the los palmos case now. whether the time limits for the different pills. it seems like this project has had many bites at the apple and the appellate process. sounds like they went to the board on something else -- can you explain that? >> the building permit was first filed and heard here. there was associated subdivisions. subdivisions are appealable to the board of supervisors. i believe they have 30 days. so they went on the subdivision, and then the building permit was issued. i believe it has been practice of the city attorney to allow ceqa appeals to be filed up until the final administrative action of the city, which is usually the board of appeals hearing. so they waited until the very last minute. they actually filed the appeal right before the board of appeals hearing was going to be held in january. commissioner borden: so there is no time limit generally? >> to clarify, the time limit is on negdex. the eir has a time limit. >> i do not understand why a sequel appeal -- a ceqa appeal would not ha