Howard Chabner's letter

Howard Chabner (Terry Lorant, Pete Jacobson)

Below is Howard Chabner's letter to Peter Hartlaub responding to the latter's bike utopia story in the Chronicle. 

Hartlaub attached Chabner's letter to his story earlier this month. (Dear Peter Hartlaub: A reader conversation about who gets left out of a car-free SF).

I decided to post the whole letter not only because it is so well done, but Chabner discusses many traffic issues people in the city need to consider. It will also be useful to me as a reference when discussing the issues here.

August 10, 2020 

Dear Mr. Hartlaub: 

This letter is in response to your piece entitled “Back to the drawing board: A map to make SF a bike and pedestrian utopia” and subtitled “13 steps to becoming a car-free city” (SF Chronicle, July 10, 2020), in which you urge San Francisco to “radically de-escalat[e] vehicle infrastructure.” 

A car-free San Francisco would be a San Francisco inhospitable to many. Attached is a memo I wrote several years ago entitled “People with Major Mobility Disabilities Rely Heavily on Automobiles.” (I use a power wheelchair; more below.) Some of the reasons I describe for using a car also apply to seniors and others. 

Besides disabled people, many seniors, families with children (especially small children), students, tradespeople, salespeople, business owners, employees and others rely on cars. 

Here are some examples. 

• I had a neighbor who taught music in the San Francisco public schools. She often taught at three or even four schools in one day; frequently they were far from each other. She brought her viola. She drove because it would have been impossible to get to each school on time using public transportation. (This was before the transportation network companies.) She also didn’t feel comfortable bringing her viola on the bus or on a taxi. 

• Instead of assigning students to their neighborhood schools, the San Francisco public schools use a lottery, which results in many students attending schools far from their neighborhood. Many children are driven to school by their parents. For example, at New Traditions Elementary School, a block from where I live, parents are lined up in their cars every afternoon to pick up their children. 

• Contractors, carpenters, electricians, painters, gardeners and other tradespeople — many of whom live in San Francisco and want to remain here — transport tools and materials, make many stops, and rely on pickup trucks and other vehicles. 

• Repairmen, technicians, salespeople, pest control people, delivery people, dog walkers and other service providers — many of whom live in San Francisco and want to remain here — make many stops in a day, have a lot of materials, and rely on automobiles.

• Physical therapists, occupational therapists, respiratory therapists, nurses, medical equipment dealers and the like who make house calls drive to their patients and clients. I’ve had home visits from each of these professionals, all of whom have driven. Many of them live in San Francisco and would like to remain here. 

• Parents drive their children to a multitude of after-school and weekend activities, classes, sports and other events. For many families, some of these events are far from home and far from each other. Some events require equipment. 

• Many people who live in San Francisco work elsewhere, and many who work here live elsewhere. For some, public transportation is nonexistent or infeasible. 

• Some people work at night or early in the morning, at times when public transportation runs infrequently or not at all. 

• Many people who aren’t disabled nonetheless are unable to ride a bike, walk long distances or climb hills. 

• Some are not comfortable using public transportation, especially at night and in bad weather. 

About Me 

I’ve lived in San Francisco since 1982, and on Fell along the Panhandle since 1988. I’ve used a power wheelchair since 1990; full-time since 1996. I’ve used Muni Metro and the buses a lot over the years, though not in the past couple of years. 

For years I commuted to work downtown on Muni Metro. I greatly enjoy strolling through San Francisco, often rolling several miles in a day. I don’t feel unsafe as a pedestrian, except when I encounter a corner without a curb ramp and have to go into the street (see below). 

I’ve had more close encounters with cyclists driving badly than with drivers. I voted all three times to tear down the Central Freeway ramps in Hayes Valley, and supported the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway. I’ve spent countless delightful, exhilarating hours strolling through Chicago, New York, Paris, Rome, Naples and other cities. 

Removing Travel Lanes and Parking Spaces 

Contrary to the implication in your piece, San Francisco hasn’t been escalating vehicle infrastructure. For years it’s been doing the opposite — reducing vehicle travel lanes, eliminating (“repurposing,” in MTA-speak) parking spaces, and restricting parking. 

My neighborhood is an example of parking loss. Parking capacity has been greatly diminished during the past five years or so. The Masonic cycle track project removed all parking on both sides of Masonic from Fell through Geary (except the west side of Masonic between Fell and Hayes). 

Several spaces on Fell west of Masonic were removed to provide exclusive parking for private corporate shuttle buses. Several spaces in the neighborhood were removed to provide exclusive parking for private short-term car rental companies. Many spaces on Central, Grove and Fell were removed for bike rental installations. Spaces have been eliminated for daylighting at many intersections. 

Bus stops have been lengthened. Very recently, around 15 to 20 spaces on Fell were removed as part of the new temporary bike lane along the Panhandle. Yet there remain only three blue (disabled) parking spaces in the area bordered by Fulton, Fell, Masonic and Stanyan. As a result, it has become much more difficult to find parking. 

Here are some examples of the impact.  

• A new caregiver of mine quit because she was unable to find parking. 

• Another caregiver was frequently late because he had difficulty finding parking. 

• My wife and I invited a friend in his late 70s who lives on the Peninsula for dinner on a Saturday night. He drove around for 45 minutes in search of parking. He was about ready to give up and go home when he finally found a space several blocks uphill from where we live. Had he not been in as good physical shape as he was (he’s able-bodied and doesn’t use a cane, crutches or a walker), or had it been raining, it would’ve been even more difficult, or impossible, for him to come to our home for dinner. Also, there have been muggings in the neighborhood over the years, and an elderly person walking alone for several blocks returning to their car at night can be an inviting target. 

• A SF Homeless Outreach Team car blocked a crosswalk and curb ramp along the Panhandle for 20 minutes one afternoon, even though the team wasn’t here for an emergency. This was the only crosswalk at that intersection; the next one was a block away. 

• I knew a couple who lived on Masonic. He was an electrician and worked at night. It became increasingly difficult to find parking for his small pickup truck when he came home from work. She operated a pillow and upholstery business in their home, where her customers came to meet with her. They always drove to her place to pick up the finished products, which were delicate and often numerous and bulky. 
It became increasingly difficult for her customers to find parking. The removal of parking along Masonic was the last straw for them. They moved away from the Bay Area a couple of years ago. They told me the increasing difficulty of driving and parking in San Francisco, which they believed was only likely to get worse, and the indifference of City officials and the MTA toward people like them who need to drive, were important factors in their decision. 

• It’s become more difficult for my wife and me to find parking, especially at night. We have a lowered floor wheelchair accessible minivan. She drives; I no longer do. For many years we rented a garage space, but it hasn’t been available for over 10 years. 

We’ve been unable to find another space to rent, especially because the universe of garages that can accommodate an adapted minivan is quite small. We go out less often in the evening than we used to, especially on Sunday evening, when the available street parking spaces are filled earlier. We tend to get home earlier than we used to. My wife returns home from her studio earlier than she used to. 

For more than five years, San Francisco has been removing vehicle travel lanes in many areas, including South of Market and on Masonic (where the extra lane during commute hours was removed). It’s been converting more lanes into bus only lanes, such as extending the bus only lanes on Geary all the way to Divisadero. It’s been removing parking spaces and restricting parking hours throughout the city, which has resulted in drivers circling further and for more time in search of parking. All of this has contributed to increased congestion. 

The Pandemic 

Since the shelter-in-place order (SIP) took effect on March 16, 2020, there’ve been a dizzying array of changes almost overnight. Work patterns have changed, many people have lost jobs, many are working from home, many businesses are closed or are operating at reduced hours and lowered capacity, children are out of school and won’t return in person for the start of the upcoming school year, indoor socializing has been reduced, there are no indoor concerts or theater or movies or restaurants, museums are closed, sports are playing without spectators, and many activities and businesses are not yet permitted to reopen. 

There have been almost no tourists from outside the Bay Area. Far fewer people from the Bay Area outside San Francisco are coming here, whether for work, socializing, shopping, entertainment or culture. Some people have moved out of San Francisco. Transportation patterns have changed. There’s less traffic. Many are avoiding Uber and Lyft, especially seniors and people with medical conditions. More people are biking in some areas. 

It’s appearing increasingly likely that COVID-19 may never go away completely, at least not for the foreseeable future. Our most realistic hope may be that one or more vaccines will be developed that, together with continuing to wash hands frequently, wear masks and practice other precautions, contain it at a low enough level that we will be able to resume most activities. That isn’t expected to happen until at least a year from now. Until then, it’s unknown whether, when and to what extent various businesses, activities, schools, etc. can reopen. The situation is fluid and complex. 

Radically De-escalating Vehicle Infrastructure 

Your exercise doesn’t include the future of the bus system and its existential crossroads, you write. Since SIP began, the number of bus lines has been cut, buses are out of service several times daily for disinfecting, and the number of passengers on each bus has been reduced in order to distance. Capacity has been greatly reduced. Muni Metro also has been operating on a limited basis and at greatly reduced capacity. MTA is hemorrhaging money. Demand has also declined. Many people, especially seniors and those with medical conditions, are, reasonably, avoiding public transportation. Many people who used to take the bus or Muni Metro to work are now out of work or are working from home. 

The future of the bus system and Muni Metro is unknown, and you don’t consider it (except the Central Subway), so how can your exercise be valid? If vehicle infrastructure were radically reduced as you advocate, would there be viable alternatives to walking and biking? How would your car-free city work? What would be the demographic implications? 

You say: “With cars returning, potentially in much greater numbers because of the fears and elevated pandemic risk associated with crowded BART and Muni options, San Franciscans will have to make a choice.”

You then argue that we should choose to radically de-escalate vehicle infrastructure. But if cars return in the same or much greater numbers, what would happen if vehicle infrastructure was radically reduced? There would be even more congestion than pre-SIP. Everyone’s safety might be compromised. The efficiency of the buses and above-ground Muni Metro would be reduced. And why should vehicle infrastructure be radically de-escalated when you acknowledge that public transportation has an elevated pandemic risk? 

You celebrate the speed at which transportation changes have been made during the pandemic “…with bureaucracy no longer an insurmountable roadblock to change.” You go on to urge, in effect, that we should seize the moment to make big changes that wouldn’t have been likely in normal circumstances. I agree that emergency conditions sometimes require that some decisions be made more quickly than usual and with less public input, but that should be done as little as possible. Emergency decisions should be considered provisional, and revisited with the usual public process when the emergency is over. 

Much of what you consider bureaucracy is open, deliberative government: a transparent decision-making process with fair notice to the public, opportunities for meaningful public input, decisions being made by the bodies with appropriate authority, the use of empirical data, and studies of the environmental and other impacts of the options. As the pandemic recedes and a relatively stable new normal emerges, the transportation changes made to address the pandemic should be reevaluated using the usual open government process. 

Although biking has increased along some routes since SIP, it hasn’t in others. The Laguna Honda Boulevard bike lanes appear not to have had heavy usage before SIP, and usage doesn’t seem to have increased much, if at all, since SIP. 

The Masonic cycle track was hardly used before SIP, and is still hardly used. When I roll in my wheelchair on Masonic from Fell to Geary or vice versa, which takes perhaps 10 minutes, there are typically no cyclists on whichever side of the street I’m rolling (I’m not able to notice the other side), and sometimes one or two. It’s commonly known in the neighborhood that the cycle track is hardly used. (The project was opposed by many in the neighborhood, including me, and including some avid daily cyclists. Our petition opposing it had over 1,300 signatures, even though we started late in the process. We predicted that the cycle track would hardly be used. The cyclists among us said that Baker is a better and more popular route and would remain so after the Masonic cycle track was constructed, which has proven to be the case.) 

It’s also important to consider that many people drive cars and bike, and although of course they want safe and convenient bike routes, most don’t want vehicle infrastructure to be drastically reduced. 

JFK Drive 

You write: “The debate to keep JFK Drive car-free permanently has been going on for a half century, with a motley crew of advocates fighting against well-moneyed museum boosters and other old-guard San Franciscans. The Great Highway seemingly came out of nowhere. Both changes have proven that their utility trumps any inconvenience.”

The De Young Museum, California Academy of Sciences and Conservatory of Flowers have been closed since SIP. The Japanese Tea Garden and Botanical Garden reopened only in the past few weeks, after your piece was published. The Golden Gate Park Tennis Center, currently closed for reconstruction, is being expanded and is expected to have much greater capacity and longer hours when it reopens, including nighttime tennis. Since SIP there are almost no tourists in the park from outside the Bay Area, and few from the Bay Area outside San Francisco. Nothing has been proven. 

The De Young is one of the 10 most visited art museums in the US. It and the Legion of Honor welcome a combined 1.5 million visitors per year. (That number may not include visitors to the Hamon Observation Tower at the De Young, which is free.) 

The Cal Academy welcomes over one million visitors per year, is an internationally renowned research institute, and conserves almost 40,000 live animals and many thousands of plants. Both institutions have large programs of free and reduced admission. Both have extensive educational programs for children and teens. The Cal Academy has regular evening programs. The De Young has an artist-in-residence program. Both institutions employ a significant number of employees. Both touch the lives of many people every day. Moreover, there are many other attractions in Golden Gate Park besides the museums and the gardens mentioned above, and many other reasons to visit. 

Pre-SIP, a significant percentage of visitors to Golden Gate Park came from the Bay Area outside of San Francisco, and a significant percentage of them came in cars. A significant percentage have mobility limitations. Public transportation from many places in the Bay Area to Golden Gate Park is very limited, and the journey is complex, time-consuming and tiring. From some places, there is none. Although “well-moneyed museum boosters and other old-guard San Franciscans” are probably among the myriad and diverse people who oppose banning cars from JFK Drive permanently, I’d bet they are a small minority. 

When the museums and other attractions in Golden Gate Park reopen, air travel will still be limited and much less popular for the foreseeable future, which means it’s likely that an even greater percentage of non-San Franciscan visitors to Golden Gate Park will come from the Bay Area outside of San Francisco, rather than tourists from other regions and abroad who are staying in San Francisco. 

Golden Gate Park (and all parks) must be accessible to everyone. Banning cars from JFK Drive permanently would greatly diminish access for many people from outside San Francisco, seniors, families, disabled people and others. The GGP shuttle doesn’t address how to get to the park, but only how to travel within it. 

I’m lucky to live near Golden Gate Park, and it’s wonderful to roll there in good weather. But for many others with mobility limitations who live far, driving is their best way to access the park. Moreover, it isn’t feasible for me to roll there when it’s windy, cold or rainy. I know disabled people who live outside of San Francisco who rarely came here anymore before SIP because driving and finding parking in San Francisco had become so difficult. When a stable new normal emerges and more attractions in the park reopen, they simply won’t come to the park — or to San Francisco at all — if they can’t drive. 

I do support continuing to close the eastern part of JFK Drive on Sundays, as it has been for the past 50 years. 

Twin Peaks 

You write of Twin Peaks: “Now it’s the best of all worlds, closed to cars and a sort of Mount Everest for bikers, walkers and runners seeking the best combination of exercise and beauty in the city.” Twin Peaks is also closed, in effect, to anyone who can’t walk, run or bike up a 922-foot-high hill. For them, it might as well be Mount Everest. That’s just wrong, and probably a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Pre-SIP, a pilot project had closed one of the two loops of the road to vehicles in order to improve access for bikers, walkers and runners, and the MTA Board voted to make the closure permanent. The other loop remained open to vehicles. I wasn’t at Twin Peaks during that time, but it sounds like a good compromise. MTA should also explore widening the roadway to create a bike lane and pedestrian path. 

You say: “Twin Peaks will test the creativity of city leaders, who must ensure that when the pandemic is over, everyone has access to the view. Whether it’s a system of shuttles, disabled parking at Christmas Tree Point or something more inventive (a tourist-friendly weekend Muni line like the 76x Marin Headlands?), the future of Twin Peaks should take personal vehicles out of the pole position.” 

Everyone should have access to the view now — during the pandemic — and when things settle down. Disabled parking isn’t enough because there are many people who aren’t disabled but cannot walk, run or bike up “Mount Everest.” Shuttles would be logistically difficult. How would people get to the shuttle at the base of the hill? For those who drive to the shuttle, where would they park? A limited bus wouldn’t be enough. The only way to provide access to all — now and when a new normal emerges — is to reopen one of the two loops to vehicles. 

Downtown

You call for limiting vehicles from a large portion of downtown, with the goal of a car-free utopia for bikers, walkers and transit. Vehicles already have been limited downtown for years, especially during the day. More and more sections of Market Street have been closed to vehicles over the past decade. All of Market Street east of Van Ness is now permanently closed to vehicles. Better Market Street is still in the early phase. Central Subway construction has eliminated vehicles from some streets. Many metered spaces have been converted from general parking to commercial parking or loading zones in recent years, and general parking hours have been shortened. The cost of parking at garages and at metered street spaces has increased.

Pre-SIP, many downtown retail spaces were vacant. Fewer people were going downtown for shopping, restaurants, entertainment, cultural events and doctor’s appointments. There were many reasons for this, including the difficulty of driving and parking downtown. Of course people should be encouraged to take public transportation, walk and bike downtown. But for the reasons described throughout this letter, some people need to drive. A reasonable balance needs to be maintained. It makes sense to continue to close Maiden Lane to vehicles. It would make no sense to close Sutter or Bush, for example. 

For many years, the parking meters on Bush east of Kearney and some of the nearby streets were commercial parking or loading until 6 PM, with general, free parking thereafter. A few years ago, MTA changed it to 7 PM and, last year or early this year, 8 PM. That made it much more difficult for people having dinner at the restaurants at Belden Place, Bush and the vicinity to find parking. I’ve been there since the change to 8 PM, and it is much more difficult to find parking. 

The popular dinner times in that area are before 8 PM. The management and staff at a restaurant I go to are quite unhappy that MTA has made it harder for their patrons to find parking. There shouldn’t be general public parking on those blocks during the day. But by around 6:30 PM, and certainly 7 PM, there’s little vehicle traffic on those blocks of Bush and Pine, and there was no valid reason for extending the parking restriction. This is an example of MTA being oblivious to the needs of businesses and customers, and having an overly restrictive parking policy. 

Since SIP, downtown is a ghost town. Also, some residents have moved out. No decisions should be made about changing transportation policy downtown until the pandemic recedes and a stable new normal emerges, and until a reasonable amount of time has passed after completion of the Central Subway and the early phases of Better Market Street. 

Subways are Essential 

The more of a city’s transportation system that’s below ground, the better for everyone. Extensive, efficient and safe underground light rail systems are essential. Underground streets are also helpful in reducing vehicle congestion at the surface level. Subterranean Paris includes not only an extensive and well-run Metro system, but streets and tunnels for motor vehicles, and many parking garages. Chicago has some underground streets. 

I wholeheartedly agree that a second BART tube should be built, and the Central Subway extended to North Beach, Fisherman’s Wharf and beyond, as far as feasible. A subway under Geary would be a game changer, and ultimately worth the great cost and time if done well. It would, however, have to be done in a way that minimizes the impact on small businesses during construction. 

That the City chose Bus Rapid Transit for Van Ness instead of a subway, and that even so, the project is far behind schedule and significantly over budget, and has harmed businesses, doesn’t bode well for the prospects of a Geary subway. But that doesn’t mean San Francisco shouldn’t try to find a way to do it — we should. 

Building stations, though, isn’t nearly as simple or cheap as “Twitter personality” Burrito Justice says. You don’t just need an escalator; you need more than one. You need stairs. You need at least two elevators at each change of level, for redundancy and capacity. The elevators need to be in a safe, convenient and visible location, not in a dark alley or secluded corner. 

The longer the platform, and the higher capacity and greater frequency the trains, the more capacity is required for moving people vertically. Deciding where to situate the stations and how to design them requires complex considerations of topography, space, traffic and many other conditions in the surrounding area. It’s puzzling why you cited Burrito Justice instead of someone with expertise and experience, such as an engineer, architect, planner or construction manager. 

It’s important to get things right so the subway is safe, convenient, pleasant and efficient for all. Some of the BART and Muni elevators are disasters. I invite you to exit Muni Metro at Montgomery, for example, proceed past the end of the boarding platform and down the alley (where you are no longer visible to other passengers), and wait for the elevator up to the concourse level. 

Try using the Muni elevators at Civic Center, Powell, Montgomery and Embarcadero for a week and count how many times you smell urine. Since a city is already investing large amounts of money, time, planning, expertise, creativity and other resources in a subway, and enduring all the difficulties of construction, and since there are no do-overs, why not grandeur? The Naples Art Metro stations and some of the Paris Metro stations, for example, are joyful, delightful and uplifting. Surely grandeur encourages people to use the subway, and enhances not only their transportation experience but sometimes their day. 

A more general point about subways is that any consideration of a city’s above ground transportation system (walking, buses, streetcars, bikes, cars, commercial vehicles, TNCs, taxis) must take into account how extensive an underground transportation system it has. What may be feasible above ground in cities such as Paris, London and New York, which have far more extensive subway systems, may not be feasible in San Francisco unless and until San Francisco’s Muni Metro and BART are expanded significantly. 

Seasons and Weather. SIP began near the end of the rainy season. Even in normal times, transportation choices and traffic patterns are different during the winter and rainy season from those when the weather is milder and the days longer. Walking long distances and biking are far less popular when it’s cold and rainy, and when it gets dark earlier. This difference may prove to be even more pronounced during the pandemic — we’ll see when winter comes. 

It may be appropriate to have bike lanes and street closures in certain areas during good weather and long days, but not at other times. Outdoor dining is delightful and popular in good weather, but not when it’s cold and rainy. San Francisco has long had successful and popular temporary street closures for farmers markets, races such as the Bay to Breakers, festivals such as the Fillmore Jazz Festival and block parties such as the Grove Street Halloween Party. The use of a street doesn’t have to be all or nothing.  

An Overlooked Pedestrian Safety Problem: Corners without Curb Ramps. An important pedestrian safety and disability access problem, almost never acknowledged and inadequately addressed by elected officials, is that San Francisco still has thousands of locations where existing curb ramps are in poor condition or where there are none at all. Pedestrian safety and bike advocacy organizations remain silent about this pedestrian safety problem and civil rights violation. 

As of October 2018, there were around 9,100 potential locations without curb ramps, per DPW. (A potential location is a place where it’s physically possible to construct a curb ramp. Curb ramps are legally required at almost all, if not all, of these locations.) As of August 2019, only 68% of locations with existing or potential curb ramps had curb ramps in good condition. (DPW Curb Ramp Dashboard of October 2019, which is the latest available.) 

Before the pandemic, it was projected that at the then-current rate of construction, San Francisco wouldn’t have curb ramps at every location where it’s physically possible to construct them until 2030, some 40 years after passage of the ADA. As of today, it’s probably even later. Only $9.6 million has been approved for curb ramps for fiscal year 2020/2021, which amounts to a rounding error in San Francisco’s $12 billion budget, a pimple on an elephant. 

When a pedestrian in a wheelchair encounters a corner without a curb ramp, either he or she can’t cross the street at all and has to backtrack, or they have to go into the street, often in the face of oncoming traffic, to find a driveway or another curb ramp 90° away. When they encounter a curb ramp in poor condition, many of which are of a dangerously steep outdated design, they are either faced with the same choice or with trying to navigate a dangerous curb ramp. 

Blind and low-vision pedestrians are at great risk at corners without curb ramps, because there is no textured dome surface to warn them that they’re approaching a street. They’re also at risk at corners with dangerously steep ones. Elderly pedestrians and those with other mobility impairments are also at risk. Other pedestrians who benefit from curb ramps, such as those pushing strollers or delivery people using wheeled carts, are also disadvantaged when there is no curb ramp or when the existing one is in poor condition. 

That so many locations in San Francisco still lack curb ramps is ironic, to say the least, considering San Francisco’s stated commitment to Vision Zero. 

Bicycle Theft

Bicycle theft seems to be increasing in recent months. This may be, in part, due to more people owning and using bikes. It may also be that criminals perceive that prosecuting bike thefts and similar property crimes is a very low priority for District Attorney Chesa Boudin. Whatever the reasons, bicycle theft is obviously an obstacle to biking. Like other property crimes, it should be investigated and prosecuted. 

***** 

The closer San Francisco gets to becoming car-free, the more difficult it would be for many people to live here, work here, own a business here, play here and visit here. There would be terrible demographic consequences that conflict with the principle often stated by elected officials, civic leaders and San Franciscans of all stripes, of encouraging and supporting a population that is diverse in, among other characteristics, age, disability status, family status, occupation and lifestyle. 

Among other impacts, the closer San Francisco gets to becoming car-free, the greater jeopardy to disabled people’s transportation options, mobility, independence and equality of opportunity. 

We are living in a strange, difficult, uncertain and fluid time. Transportation changes that have been put in place to deal with the COVID-19 emergency should be considered provisional, and revisited with the usual public decision-making process when the emergency is over. 

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely 

Howard L. Chabner 

Rob Rogers