Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 89-01; Bentson Building Conversion; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (2)2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE •jjfffl/ J M TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WT^J^M (619) 438-1161 (Eitu 0f (ttarlabaa PU\NNING DEPARmENT May 2, 1989 Jim Bentson 3076 Palm Street San Diego, CA 92104 SUBJECT: RP 89-1 Bentson Preliminary Staff Report The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available for you to pick up on Friday, May 5, 1989, after 8 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (D.C.C.) meeting which will be held on Monday, May 8, 1989. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 11:30 a.m. If you have any questions concerning your project, you should attend the D.C.C. meeting. It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with you to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact the Planning Department at 438-1161. CITY OF CARLSBAD MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director Planning Department LBS:MJH\lh James T. Bentson 3076 Palm Street San Diego, California 92104-5005 (619) 280-8173 May 1, 1989 Chris Salomone Housing and Redevelopment Director 2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B Carlsbad, California 92008-2389 Re: MINOR RE-DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Dear Mr. Salomone: We have been informed by Mr. Schulte the staff recommendations have been completed and are positive. Mr. Schulte has further informed us that our application is scheduled to go in front of the Design Review Board on May 17, 1989, and because Mr. Schulte will be on vacation, you will present our application to the Board. We are happy that you will be presenting our application. Your familiarity with the project will be a positive influence. The city has required a great deal of changes since we have previously discussed the project. We think we have complied with all of the rules and regulations. To assist you in the reasons for some of the changes, we would like to offer the assistance of Mr. Royce and myself for you to consult with prior to the meeting. Mr. Royce and myself will also be present at the Design Review Board hearing to respond to any questions or comments regarding the application. If you have any questions or comments please contact myself or Mr. Royce. regarding this project, Very truly yours, Jim Bentson cc: Mr. Robert Royce Costa Real Municipal Water Distrbt ^^^1^^^^ 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008 ^ Telephone: (619) 438-2722 Engineering Dept: 438-3367 April 25, 1989 To: City of Carlsbad Land Use Planning 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Attn: Lance Schulte Subj: Bentson, 2644 Madison (Conversion of Residence to Office) CRMWD Project No. 89-C-00(H) The subject project has been reviewed by the District's Engineering Department to determine the extent of District's involvement regarding existing and proposed water system to serve proposed project as follows: YES NO Are there transmission lines that affect project? ( ) (X) Are there existing facilities that will have to be reconstruction? ( ) (X) Are there new facilities that will have to be constructed? ( ) (X) Are there existing District agreements that have a financial impact on these projects? ( ) (X) We have the following comments: 1. The developer will be responsible for all fees and deposits plus the major facility charge which will be collected at time of issuance of building permit. 2. Presently the residence has an existing 1" water service that serves property. Page two Lance Schulte April 25, 1989 We ask that you include the above recomendations as a condition of approval. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions. Very truly yours. F. Jei Engineering Supervisor FJW:sjs CRMWD 89-C-00(H) cc: Mike Smith, Fire Marshal James T. Bentson 3076 Palm Street San Diego, California 92104-5005 (619) 280-8173 April 17, 1989 Lance Schulte Planning Department 2075 Los Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 Re: APPLICATION FOR MINOR RE-DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #RP 89-1 Dear Mr. Schulte: Thank you for calling me on the telephone the other day. We are happy to hear that the application for the minor re-development permit is finally moving. As I understand the next step is the preparation of the staff report and then the design review board. After reviewing my records, I think that I was in error when I told the counter person that we had already paid the $175.00 fee. We have paid so many fees, and cost in this project to date, I think I just assumed it had been paid. Here is the $175.00 for the permit. I Hope this will not cause any further delay. I will call you next week to check on the progress. If there is anything that I can do to move this project along, please call me. Thank you very much for you assistance. Very truly yours, James T. Bentson 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE M 4rm AM TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 M^Wlr jfm (619) 438-1161 (flitu nf (CarlHbab PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 11, 1989 Jim Bentson 3076 Palm Street San Diego, CA 92104-5005 SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT 89-1 Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Minor Redevelopment Permit, application no. RP 89-1, as to its completeness for processing. The application is complete, as submitted. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. Please contact your staff planner. Lance B. Schulte, at (619) 438-1161, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:LBS/af cc: Charles Grimm Mark Granich Erin Letsch f MEMORANDUM DATE: MARCH 15, 1989 TO: CHRIS SALOMONE FROM: LANCE SCHULTE SUBJECT: BENTSON - RP 89-1 Chris, I met with Mr. Bentson and Rob Royce yesterday. We went over the issues letter and it appears most of the issues will be resolved within the next week or two. With those issues resolved, we should be able to take Mr. Bentson's project to Design Review Board fairly soon. I will let you know the exact status when the new submittals come in. If you have any questions, please give me a call. LBS:af bentson.mem c: RP 89-1 James T. Bentson 3076 Palm Street San Diego, California 92104-5005 (619) 280-8173 March 15, 1989 Lance Schulte Planning Department 2075 Los Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 Re: APPLICATION FOR MINOR RE-DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #RP 89-1 Dear Mr. Schulte: This letter confirms the results of our meeting on March 14, 1989 at approximately 10:45am at the site for the proposed office. Present were myself, you and Mr. Royce. Also, Pete Schmidt the realtor stopped by the site during our discussion. We discussed the outstanding ISSUES OF CONCERN mainly the garage and the exterior improvements. THE GARAGE We discussed several areas. First, we showed you the clearance for the cars to back up and gain access to the garage. Next we agreed that because of our safety concerns the best way to assure the garage will be used as a parking will be to install two big windows in the front of the garage facing the street. EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS We then outlined the proposed exterior improvements to enhance the site and to accommodate the proposed use. We noted that the following exterior improvement will be made: 1. Stucco to the exterior 2. New windows 3. New roofing surface 4. Landscaping We also discussed the fact that we will be adding exterior wood trim where allowable. Next we discussed the cities desire for a sign. We agreed to have the sign on the gable end of the garage with the business name and the street address. Lastly, you indicated that the old wood picket fence in the front yard should be removed and we agreed. If this letter materially departs from your understanding of our meeting, please contact me as soon as possible. Mr. Royce will be submitting to you three rough drafts of our proposed plans. You graciously offered to review these plans and make any final suggestions or comments. We look forward to a speedy final resolution of all outstanding matters in this project. Thank you very much for you assistance. Very truly yours, James T. Bentson cc: Robert J. Royce, A.I.A. James T. Bentson 3076 Palm Street San Diego, California 92104-5005 (619) 280-8173 February 25, 1989 Lance Schulte Planning Department 2075 Los Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California FEB » 92009-4859 Re: APPLICATION FOR MINOR RE-DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IRP 89-1 Dear Mr. Schulte: We are in receipt of the letter from Mr. Holzmiller dated February 17, 1989 with the attached list of concerns. Let me assure you that we will work very hard to resolve the points on the list and all other concerns of the city. In order to begin work on the issues, it is necessary that I speak with you regarding a few of the items. That is why I called you three times on Friday. There are a few items that I do not understand completely and other which some comments from you would be of great assistance. After the architect and myself have worked on these issues, we will schedule a meeting with you as per your suggestion and run our proposals by you. To that end, I would appreciate you returning my calls at your earliest convenience so that you can clear up some areas that I do not understand. Thank you very much for you assistance Very truly yours, James T. Bentson FEBRUARY 28, 1989 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: Management Analyst VIA: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PLANNING DIRECTOR JANES BENTSON Mr. Bentson has requested that he be placed on the next available Council agenda to discuss the processing of permits for his proposed project in the Redevelopment area. This report provides a description of Mr. Bentson's project, a summary of the facts and circumstances surrounding the processing of his project to date (a chart of events can be found in exhibit 1) and an outline of the steps necessary to complete the processing of his application for a Redevelopment Permit. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project involves converting an existing single family detached dwelling (located at 2644 Madison) to an office building. It proposes no real significant alterations to the site and requests the use change. To date, a few minor design changes would provide for a favorable staff review of the project. Without these changes, staff has some concerns over the adequacy of the proposed modifications to accomodate the proposed use. In a phone call to Mr. Bentson on February 23, 1989, the project planner explained the issues (exhibit 2) and offered to visit the project site to go over these concerns with Mr. Bentson in person. Mr. Bentson responded that he understood the issues, how the process to complete his application would occur and that he didn't have any problems with the process and was generally satisfied with the plan for resolving the issues. II. SUMMARY OF FACTS Mr. Bentson first contacted the City at the Las Palmas facility in September 1988, ostensibly for information on the steps necesary to convert a Downtown residence into an office. Upon this initial contact with Mr. Bentson, in September. 1988. he was advised first to contact the Housina and Redevelopment Office for a Redevelopment Permit (at no cost to him) because through the Redevelopment Permit application process a determination. of the feasibility of his plans could be made. He was also advised at this time to apply for a compliance inspection to identify any major problems with the structure that might preclude its use as a commercial building. Mr. Bentson chose not to follow the procedure outlined^\f^or him. He applied for the complianceprTispection on October 7, 19u9;Jit was conducted on October 14. 1989.) and at this time Mr. Bentson was again informed that his ^n^t priority must be to obtain a Redevelopment Permit. The building inspector identified some necessary structural modifications and qualified his opinion by stating that the conversion appeared to be feasible with approval of a Redevelopment Permit. He then advised Mr. Bentson that an architect's services would be necessary and plans of the proposed project would have to be submitted. (Note: many problems with projects cannot be identified prior to Planning and Engineering review of plans). Mr. Bentson's next contact with the City was at a meeting between the Housing and Redevelopment Director, Mr. Bentson and the Prin^ij^ Building Inspector. Once again, at this time, November 15. "1939/ Mr. Bentson was informed bv the Housina and Redevelopment Direcfcoif that he could not move forward on his proposed proiect withoirlE a Redevelopment Permit. " On November 29, 19^9, )Mr. Bentson returned to the Las Palmas facilit;y^'T^th a plak^pheck application. At this time, on November 29. 1989.1 a Counter Technician informed Mr. Bentson that a Redevdklop^ent Permit was required before anv other processina of his proposed proiect could occur. He maintained, however, that the Housing & Redevelopment Director had told him that "everything was fine". The Technician then called an Associate Planner to the counter to explain the Permit process to Mr. Bentson. Together, the Counter Technician and Associate Planner explained that a Redevelopment Permit was necessary prior to the issuance of building permits and that initiating the processing of his building plans was pointless at that time since the review of plans for projects in the Redevelopment area is contingent upon approval of a Redevelopment Permit. Mr. Bentson insisted, however, on submitt ina buildina permit applications prior to receivina approval of a Redevelopment Permit and stated to the Associate Planner that he would "take his chances." Mr. Bentson's plans were sent through Plan Check and the plan checkers reviewed them, made comments and corrections, identified that a Redevelopment Permit was necessary and rejected any further processing until a Permit was acquired. Upon receipt of the plan check review results, Mr. Bentson sent a letter to the Community Development Director on December 14, 1988 (exhibit 3) requesting that he determine if any "alternatives" were available for him to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. The Director responded in a letter to him on December 22, 1988 (exhibit 4) that he would do what he could to help Mr. Bentson when he completed the plan check process, and then only within the constraints of the Uniform Building Code. It is unclear at exactly what point Mr. Bentson submitted his application for a Redevelopment Permit. According to both the Technician and the Planner who helped Mr. Bentson on November 29, 1988, at no time did Mr. Bentson state or indicate in any way that he had already submitted the application. If he had, the Planner could have initiated action on processing the Permit. Mr. Bentson did, however, submit his plans and Redevelopment Permit Application to the Housing & Redevelopment Department (correct procedure is to submit them at the Las Palmas facility) some time between November 18, 1988 and January 29, 1989. Due to an error by staff, however, his application, which he dated November 18, 1988, and plans were not stamped with the date received and were set aside until they were transmitted to the Planning Department January 30, 1989. For our part, staff acknowledges that an inordinate amount of time passed before the processing of his plans was initiated. Mr. Bentson, however, has acted unconscionably in his attempt to obtain approval of his project. Mr. Bentson has contacted various members of staff in several departments. He has repeatedly sought out the advice of anyone who will listen to him and has chosen to ignore that which he doesn't want to heed. He is often contentious and demanding and has tried to manipulate the "system" by misrepresenting direction he receives from staff. In conclusion, Mr. Bentson is attempting to win exemption from City standards by placing blame on staff for his inability to fund his project. He maintains that he would not have purchased the property if he had been made aware of all the modifications necessary for project approval. He repeatedly told the Compliance Inspector, however, that he lacked the funds to make the structural changes suggested on the day of inspection, a date supposedly before the date of purchase. Furthermore, all issues of concern cannot be identified at a Compliance Inspection; it can only become clear to planners and engineers what is actually being proposed in a project when the plans are submitted. Finally, Mr. Bentson was repeatedly advised to follow the Redevelopment Permit Application process first, at no cost to him, so the feasibility of his proposals could be determined prior to any further processing of his project and expense to him. The City cannot be the scapegoat for Mr. Bentson because he has been unsuccessful in his attempt to circumvent City policies and regulations designed for the aood of all and applied to all equally. III. REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESSING SCHEDULE AND REOUIREMENTS As of March 1, 1989, there are four steps remaining to complete the processing of Mr. Bentson's project. Processing cannot take place concurrently but rather the requirements of each must be completed before moving on to the next step. 1. Mr. Bentson must complete his application. (Exhibit 2, Issues Letter) 2. Staff conducts environmental review. In this case, the review can be completed in one day. 3. Mr. Bentson and staff work together to resolve any issues. 4. Staff compiles staff report for public hearing. This requirement can be fulfilled within 30 days from the date step number 3 is completed. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. ERIN K. LETSCH Management Analyst arb c: Phil Carter Chris Salomone Lance Schulte Tony Mata Bentson-Chronology of Events EXHIBIT 1 Sep-1988 Oct-14-1988 Nov-15-1988 Nov-29-1988 Jan-30-1989 Feb-10-1989 Feb-23-1989 Applicant advised to contact H&R office for a permit and then to apply for Compliance Inspection Applicant applied for Compliance Inspection which was conducted on Oct. 14 per applicant's request. Inspector informed applicant he needed a Redevelopment Permit Applicant informed by H&R Director that he must get a Redeve1opment Permit Applicant submitted plans for building permits. Both Counter Technician and Planner explained that a Redeve1opment Permit is required prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant insisted that he would still rather submit building permits prior to obtaining Redeve1opment Permit and would "take his chances." Application submitted sometime between Nov-18-1988 and Jan-29-1989 Applicant's plans and Permit application received by the Planning Department. Planner called Applicant same day and discussed problems with the plans Applicant submitted revised plans Applicant understands processing and is satisfied with plans to resolve issues raised by Planning and Engineering. Applicant voiced same sentiment in subsequent discussions with Planner 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 EXHIBIT 2 TELEPHONE (619) 438-1161 (EitQ of (Harlfibaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 17, 1989 Mr. Jim Bentson 3076 Palm Street San Diego, CA 92104 Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Minor Redevelopment Permit, application no. RP 89-1, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be provided to complete your application. The second list is issues of concern to staff. To help speed processing of the application, it is suggested that each item on the lists be rectified or addressed in a letter to your staff planner. You should be aware that no processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. Please contact your staff planner. Lance Schulte, at (619) 438-1161, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMTLLER Planning Director MJH:LBS/af Attachment cc: Charles Grimm Mark Granich Erin Letsch Mike Howes Chris Salomone Bob Wojcik LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE APPLICATION: RP 89-1 The application is missing the following materials a. EIA Form b. PFF Agreement c. Title Report d. Radius Map (6007300') e. Property owners' list f. Envelopes (2 complete sets) g. Labels (Postage Paid ) 1 set/2 sets ISSUES OF CONCERN PLANNING: 1. There appears to be inconsistency in your drawings and a potential conflict between auto and pedestrians at the proposed building entryway. In particular, parking space number 3 provides potential for auto/pedestrian conflict. Turn movements with that conflict point would be difficult. 2. The proposed garage parking area needs to be further defined. Does the proposed garage provide sight distance for clear movement in and out of the garage. Also, the design of that garage parking needs to assure that it will only be used as a parking facility. 3. No exterior improvements building are shown. Conversion of a single family dwelling to an office requires a requisite enhancement of the site and building to accommodate that use. 4. No signage is shown on the application. Please provide a preliminary indication of proposed signage. ENGINEERING: 1. Driveway width dimensions are not shown. 2. No dimension is shown for area accessing garage. It is unknown if cars will have sufficient maneuvering room. 3. It does not appear that parking space #4 will be able to turn around and exit the site front first. It is undesirable to have the vehicle back out on to the public street. 4. No existing public improvements or R.O.W. is shown. Items such as curb, gutter, sidewalk pavement, etc. Should be shown and called out on the site plan. Also show % slope of drainage and driveway. EXHIBIT 3 James T. Bentson 3076 Palm Street San Diego, California 92104 (619) 280-8173 5005 December 14, 1988 Marty Orenyak Community Development Director 2075 Los Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 Re: Project address: Plan Check No: Project description: 2644 Madison 88-1594 Set I (Esgil Corp.) Conversion from.R-3 to B-2 Dea r Mr. Orenyak: This letter confirms our telephone conferences of December 13 and 14. I informed you that a few months ago we were investigating the feasibility of purchasing a residence in Downtown and converting it into an office. We located a property which we thouglit might fulfill our needs. We then inquired into the City of Carlsbad to determine the feasibility of the conversion. The plan cfieck person informed us that the proper procedure was to have a compliance inspection. We were informed that the compliance inspection would tell us of all changes or modifications which we would be required to make. We paid the fee to the city and had a compliance inspection before we finalized the purchase. After reviewing the property, the inspector told us that we would need to make handicapped access, update the electrical and some other insignificant modifications. He said, other than these items, the building was fine. We then estimated the cost of these modifications and determined that we could, with great difficulty, bear the costs. Relying on the results of this inspection we closed escrow and became owners of this property. We then did exactly what the inspector told us. To our surprise, our plans were returned from ESGIL with lumdrcMis of c o r r or t i o ii s . I spoke with two Architects today, and based on our current situation, and ESGIL's corrections, it now appears that we must start from scratch. We will have to spend, in addition to the monies already anticipated, approximately $15,0 0 0.00 to $20,000.00 more dollars! This excludes the costs incurred in monthly payments in our current location and the Madison location. We simply can not afford to spend this kind of money. Had we been told the full story at the compliance inspection, we would not have purchased this property. Now we are in the untenable position of having all of our money tied up in this project which we can not afford to finish. The specific areas (not mentioned in the compliance inspection) which seem to be causing the most trouble are the one hour fire requirements, the structural requirements and the framing requirements. As I mentioned to you on the telephone, it is our goal to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. We in no way wish to fray with the city. The reason I contacted you was to determine if there are any alternatives available to us ? Are there any exceptions or limitations within applicable law ? Do you think a variance might be a viable solution ? I would like to personally thank you for your concern and interest that you have demonstrated in investigating our dilemma. We are confident that a solution to our situationcan be found. In the interim, we will retain a local Architect to determine tho most cost effective solution. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours. EXHIBIT 4 City of Carlsbad December 22, 1988 James T. Bentson 3076 Palm Street San Diego, CA 92104-5005 CONVERSION AT 2644 MADISON, PLAN CHECK 88-1594 Dear Mr. Bentson: Your letter describes problems you are experiencing with your project and asks me for assistance. I researched your project, and this is what I found. When you came to our office in September, 1988, the first advice you were given was to contact the Housing and Redevelopment Section for a permit which would tell you if what you planned to do was possible. You were also advised to apply for a compliance inspection to see if there was any major faults that might prevent the old building from being used for anything. You applied for the compliance inspection on October 7, 1988, but you did not apply for the Redevelopment Permit until November 18, 1988. Two inspectors made the inspection and agreed the building was sound. After applying for a Redevelopment Permit, you came to the office with a plan check application on November 29, 1988. At this time a Counter Technician told you a Redevelopment Permit was required and called an Associate Planner to the counter who carefully explained that your plan check fee was not returnable, and the first plan check correction from Engineering and Planning would be "Redevelopment Permit required", at which point their portion of the plan check would stop until the permit was granted or denied. Even with this knowledge you insisted on presenting your plans for plan check. The first plan check has been completed. Planning and Engineering have responded as outlined above, and the Building Department, through its contractor, has many corrections. This is always the case in a change of occupancy of this type because of the more restrictive fire protection and load requirements of the office occupancy. 2075 Las Palmas Drive• Carlsbad, California 92009-4859• (61 9) 438-1161 Mr. James Bentson December 22, 1988 Page Two You have asked me, as the Building Official, if I can somehow alter or diminish the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Your letter states that the specific areas which are the most troublesome are the one hour fire requirements, the structural requirements and the framing requirements. I will do what I can for you when you have completed the plan check process, but keep in mind, that the Uniform Building Code limits what the Building Official can modify, and only if appropriate findings can be made that the proposed use or occupancy is less hazardous than the existing use. You ask if a variance would be a solution. The Uniform Building Code does not contain a provision for variance. A variance is used for requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, such as setbacks, number of units, fence heights, etc. No further action will be taken by this Department until you have received appropriate discretionary approvals from the Design Review Board. MARTY ORENYAK^ Community Development Director bjn Redevelopment Principal Building Inspector Carter Darnell 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 (Eito 0f (Earlabai PLANNING DEPARTMENT I' u February 17, 1989 y TELEPHONE (619) 438-1161 Mr. Jim Bentson 3076 Palm Street San Diego, CA 92104 Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Minor Redevelopment Permit, application RP 89-1, as to its completeness for processing. no. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be provided to complete your application. The second list is issues of concern to staff. To help speed processing of the application, it is suggested that each item on the lists be rectified or addressed in a letter to your staff planner. You should be aware that no processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. Please contact your staff planner. Lance Schulte, at (619) 438-1161, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZhfllLER Planning Director MJH:LBS/af Attachment cc: Charles Grimm Mark Granich Erin Letsch Mike Howes Chris Salomone Bob Wojcik