if you look at the sanborn maps, every lot on this block base provides that mandatory rearguard, with the exception of that one building which is a historical anomaly in this case. the other properties in the vicinity do not enjoy this sort of intensity of development in the rear yard. that was a specific finding made back in 1993. they also do not enjoy this kind of lot coverage. if you look at what they are proposing, that are proposing a 70 foot foot print. that is what they are proposing right there. compare that to all the other buildings. 15 feet in front, 15 feet in back on a 100 foot lot. no other building has that. this is absurd. this building has the most visual impact on the open space, and to provide additional rear yard coverage goes against the general plan. it goes against prior decisions by the department. it goes against the planning code. you are supposed to have 45% rear yard. you can build on 55 feet there. they are asking you for 70. do not overturn the previous decision. at a minimum, let us reconcile. have the department reconcile these diametrically opposed de