DOCSLIB.ORG

Regional Setting, Regulatory Considerations, Significance Standards and Analysis Methodology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regional Setting, Regulatory Considerations, Significance Standards and Analysis Methodology CHAPTER 4 Regional Setting, Regulatory Considerations, Significance Standards and Analysis Methodology 4.0 Introduction Chapter 4 includes discussion of baseline conditions and presents the thresholds of significance (“Significance Standards”) used in this EIR to assess the program-level impacts of the 2014 LRDP. Following this introductory material, the rest of this chapter is divided into 15 major sections, one for each environmental topic considered. Each major section contains: environmental and regulatory regional setting information regarding the environmental topic, relevant background and regulatory material, the Significance Standards and the analysis methodology for the topic. The Regional Setting section describes those regional baseline conditions pertinent to an environmental topic and thus, provides the context for an analysis of potential impacts resulting from implementation of the 2014 LRDP. Site-specific setting information applicable to a particular proposal at a campus site is presented in the relevant chapter in which campus site impacts are discussed (i.e., Chapters 6 through 9). The Regulatory Considerations section summarizes relevant federal, state and local laws that govern various aspects of an environmental topic. The preparation of this EIR was preceded by an Initial Study (included as Appendix A), which determined that the 2014 LRDP would not result in certain identified impacts. Each of the environmental resource sections clearly identifies those effects that were adequately addressed in the Initial Study and are therefore not evaluated further in this EIR. The topics of Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources were determined in the Initial Study to require no further analysis in the EIR. Accordingly, these topics are not discussed in this EIR. 4.0.1 Baseline The environmental setting sections describe the baseline physical environmental conditions. For purposes of the analyses in this EIR, the baseline is the most recent completed academic year: 2012-2013. This EIR evaluates environmental impacts in terms of changes resulting from implementation of the 2014 LRDP as compared to existing conditions. With a few exceptions as stated in the text, the UCSF 2014 Long Range Development Plan 4-1 ESA / 120821 Environmental Impact Report November 2014 4. Regional Setting, Regulatory Considerations, Significance Standards and Analysis Methodology conditions that would result at the LRDP planning horizon year (2035) are compared to baseline conditions to characterize the changes that would result from implementing the 2014 LRDP. 4.0.2 Levels of Significance This EIR uses a variety of terms to describe the levels of significance of adverse impacts identified during the course of the environmental analysis. The following are definitions of terms used in this EIR: Less than Significant Impact. Impacts that are adverse but are not substantial because they do not exceed the specified standards of significance. Potentially Significant. Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance and that may be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Significant and Unavoidable. Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance and that cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. 4.0.3 Analysis of Cumulative Effects The geographic extents of potential cumulative effects of the 2014 LRDP differ according to the environmental topic. For each environmental topic area, the analysis specifies the geographic scope of the cumulative impact, considers whether implementation of the 2014 LRDP in conjunction with past, present, and probable future projects would result in potentially significant cumulative impacts, and finally, determines whether the LRDP’s contribution to that effect would be “cumulatively considerable.” Cumulative impacts of the 2014 LRDP are discussed in Chapter 10 of this EIR. UCSF 2014 Long Range Development Plan 4-2 ESA / 120821 Environmental Impact Report November 2014 4. Regional Setting, Regulatory Considerations, Significance Standards and Analysis Methodology 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1 Aesthetics This section presents the Regional Setting, Regulatory Considerations, Significance Standards, and Analysis Methodology for the evaluation of Aesthetics impacts. 2014 LRDP Aesthetics effects are discussed in Chapter 5, 2014 LRDP –Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Aesthetics effects resulting from 2014 LRDP proposals at each of the four affected campus sites are discussed in Chapter 6, Parnassus Heights – Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Chapter 7, Mission Bay – Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Chapter 8, Mount Zion – Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Chapter 9, Mission Center – Impacts and Mitigation Measures. 4.1.1 Regional Setting The regional setting for aesthetics is the City of San Francisco, a relatively dense urban environment that is built out in most areas. Visual resources and issues within the City focus predominantly on protection of waterfront views and long-range views and encouragement of development that is compatible with adjacent existing or planned development and neighborhoods. Each campus site is located in a visually distinct area of the City, characterized by natural landforms and topography, existing buildings and unique land use patterns. 4.1.2 Regulatory Considerations 4.1.2.1 UCSF Facilities Design Guidelines New development at UCSF is guided by the Facilities Design Guidelines. The guidelines set forth design objectives and special considerations for UCSF projects, with an emphasis on a project’s functional requirements, overall economy and technical guidelines. The Facilities Design Guidelines also contain specific policies related to landscaping at UCSF campus sites. These policies include designing landscapes at entrances and exits to UCSF facilities (e.g., roadways, parking lots and pedestrian areas) to maximize visibility and allow adequate lighting. Vegetation should be compatible with the natural limitations presented by the Bay Area’s climate and soil conditions, and also be appropriate for man‐made environments (e.g., adequate for use as street trees). Additional policies related to landscaping include incorporating water and energy conservation features and utilizing low‐maintenance materials. 4.1.2.2 UCSF Physical Design Framework Development at UCSF is also guided by the Physical Design Framework, which sets forth a vision for the physical development of all UCSF campus sites. It serves as the foundation for UCSF to plan and design future projects according to a clear and consistent set of planning and design principles, guidelines and strategies. The Physical Design Framework contains six planning principles that are universally applicable to UCSF campus sites. They express key thematic concepts of Context, Connectivity, Cohesiveness, Collegiality, Community and Conservation. UCSF 2014 Long Range Development Plan 4-3 ESA / 120821 Environmental Impact Report November 2014 4. Regional Setting, Regulatory Considerations, Significance Standards and Analysis Methodology 4.1 Aesthetics Each of the above principles contains related specific guidelines, such as designing buildings to fit within their urban context, considering massing, style, pattern and color of buildings in the vicinity; relating buildings to pedestrians and scale to human activity and visual interest; providing a positive campus interface at campus edges; providing comfortable, activated campus open spaces; and incorporating sustainability features in buildings. 4.1.2.3 San Francisco General Plan The City’s General Plan includes policies that pertain to views and visual quality. The policies most relevant to aesthetics are contained in the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. Policies 1.1 through 1.5 of the City Pattern section of the Urban Design Element relate to the appearance of buildings and landscaping, and their total effect that characterizes the various city districts. These policies also recognize and protect major public views in the city, with particular attention to views of open space. Policies 2.4 through 2.6 of the Conservation section of the Urban Design Element address notable landmarks of aesthetic or other importance, as well as convey a need to respect the character of nearby older development in the design of new buildings. The Major New Development section of the Urban Design Element, Policies 3.1 through 3.7, relate to building design and the visual relationship between new and established development, with an emphasis on promoting a harmonious relationship between existing and new buildings, relating building heights to important attributes of the city pattern and to heights of existing buildings, and recognizing the special urban design problems posed in development of large properties. Policy 4.15 of the Neighborhood Environment section of the Urban Design Element includes requirements for protecting the livability and character of neighborhoods from intrusion of incompatible new development. Although the University is not subject to local planning policies whenever using land under its control in furtherance of its educational mission, the University strives to be consistent with local policies where feasible. 4.1.2.4 San Francisco Planning Code The standards contained within the San Francisco Planning Code are used to analyze the potential wind and shadow impacts of projects. San Francisco
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Outside Lands Outside Lands History from the Western Neighborhoods Project 2 Where in West S.F.? (Previously Issued As SF West History)
    OutsideSan Francisco HistoryLands from Western Neighborhoods Project Volume 14, No. 1 Jan–Mar 2018 100 Years of the Twin Peaks Tunnel I NS I DE 1 Inside the Outside Lands OUTSIDE LANDS History from the Western Neighborhoods Project 2 Where in West S.F.? (Previously issued as SF West History) January-March 2018: Volume 14, Number 1 3 OpenSFHistory Highlight John Martini remembers Fleishhacker Pool EDITOR: Woody LaBounty CONTRIBUTORS: Angus Macfarlane, John Martini, and Arnold Woods 6 Roosevelt History, Part One The Story of a Richmond District school Board of Directors 2018 by Angus Macfarlane Chelsea Sellin, President Jamie O’Keefe, Vice President Anisha Gupta, Secretary 10 Westward the Course of Empire Takes its David Gallagher, Treasurer Way–100 Years of the Twin Peaks Tunnel Richard Brandi, David Chang, Nicole Meldahl, Kyrie Whitsett, Arnold Woods by Arnold Woods Staff: Woody LaBounty, Dave Lucas 15 Thank You to Our Donors Advisory Board Those who supported us in 2017 Cammy Blackstone, Al Harris, Gretchen Hilyard, Brady Lea, Felicity O’Meara, Paul Rosenberg, Nate Tico, and Lorri Ungaretti 20 Historical Happenings The WNP Event Calendar Western Neighborhoods Project 4016 Geary Boulevard, Suite A 22 A Home for History San Francisco, CA 94118 New WNP digs at 1617 Balboa Street Tel: 415/661-1000 Email: [email protected] Website: www.outsidelands.org facebook.com/outsidelands twitter.com/outsidelandz instagram.com/westernneighborhoods/ Cover: Mayor Rolph driving the first streetcar out of the west portal of the Twin Peaks tunnel, February 3, 1918. (wnp15.174) © 2018 Western Neighborhoods Project. All rights reserved. Inside the Outside Lands Woody LaBounty estern Neighborhoods Project from the neighborhoods recon- (that’s us), the nonprofit with a nected, but just as many strangers mission to preserve and share became new friends in sharing their Wlocal history, now has a public space love of history and of the west side for exhibits, presentations, and com- of San Francisco.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Department of Public Works Bureau of Engineering Records, 1881-1947(Bulk 1908-1944),SFH 458
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8z03f9r No online items Finding Aid to the San Francisco Department of Public Works Bureau of Engineering records, 1881-1947(bulk 1908-1944),SFH 458 Finding aid prepared by Tami J. Suzuki. San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library 2018 100 Larkin Street San Francisco, CA 94102 [email protected] URL: http://www.sfpl.org/sfhistory Finding Aid to the San Francisco SFH 458 1 Department of Public Works Bureau of Engineering records, ... Title: San Francisco Department of Public Works Bureau of Engineering records, Date (inclusive): 1881-1947 Date (bulk): 1908-1944 Identifier/Call Number: SFH 458 Creator: San Francisco (Calif.). Public Works. Creator: San Francisco (Calif.). Dept. of Public Works. Creator: San Francisco (Calif.). Board of Public Works. Creator: San Francisco (Calif.). Bureau of Engineering. Physical Description: 39.2 Cubic Feet(41 boxes, 1 manuscripts box) Contributing Institution: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library 100 Larkin Street San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 557-4567 [email protected] Abstract: Includes correspondence and project and subject files documenting public infrastructure construction in San Francisco, following the 1906 earthquake and fire. The collection is stored offsite. Language of Material: Collection materials are in English. Conditions Governing Access The collection is available for use during San Francisco History Center hours. Collections that are stored offsite should be requested 48 hours in advance. Photographs cannot be photocopied. Gloves are required when handling photographs. Conditions Governing Use All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the City Archivist.
    [Show full text]
  • Fang Family San Francisco Examiner Photograph Archive Negative Files, Circa 1930-2000, Circa 1930-2000
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/hb6t1nb85b No online items Finding Aid to the Fang family San Francisco examiner photograph archive negative files, circa 1930-2000, circa 1930-2000 Bancroft Library staff The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ © 2010 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Finding Aid to the Fang family San BANC PIC 2006.029--NEG 1 Francisco examiner photograph archive negative files, circa 1930-... Finding Aid to the Fang family San Francisco examiner photograph archive negative files, circa 1930-2000, circa 1930-2000 Collection number: BANC PIC 2006.029--NEG The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ Finding Aid Author(s): Bancroft Library staff Finding Aid Encoded By: GenX © 2011 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Collection Summary Collection Title: Fang family San Francisco examiner photograph archive negative files Date (inclusive): circa 1930-2000 Collection Number: BANC PIC 2006.029--NEG Creator: San Francisco Examiner (Firm) Extent: 3,200 boxes (ca. 3,600,000 photographic negatives); safety film, nitrate film, and glass : various film sizes, chiefly 4 x 5 in. and 35mm. Repository: The Bancroft Library. University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ Abstract: Local news photographs taken by staff of the Examiner, a major San Francisco daily newspaper.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Natural Nuclear Bunkers
    America’s Natural Nuclear Bunkers 1 America’s Natural Nuclear Bunkers Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................... 10 Alabama .............................................................................................................. 12 Alabama Caves .................................................................................................. 13 Alabama Mines ................................................................................................. 16 Alabama Tunnels .............................................................................................. 16 Alaska ................................................................................................................. 18 Alaska Caves ..................................................................................................... 19 Alaska Mines ............................................................................................... 19 Arizona ............................................................................................................... 24 Arizona Caves ................................................................................................... 25 Arizona Mines ................................................................................................... 26 Arkansas ............................................................................................................ 28 Arkansas Caves ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download Full Book
    Questioning the Premedical Paradigm Barr, Donald A. Published by Johns Hopkins University Press Barr, Donald A. Questioning the Premedical Paradigm: Enhancing Diversity in the Medical Profession a Century after the Flexner Report. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010. Project MUSE. doi:10.1353/book.462. https://muse.jhu.edu/. For additional information about this book https://muse.jhu.edu/book/462 [ Access provided at 1 Oct 2021 20:42 GMT with no institutional affiliation ] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Questioning the Premedical Paradigm This page intentionally left blank Questioning the Premedical Paradigm Enhancing Diversity in the Medical Profession a Century after the Flexner Report DONALD A. BARR, M.D., PH.D. Associate Professor Departments of Sociology and Pediatrics Stanford University Stanford, California The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore © 2010 The Johns Hopkins University Press All rights reserved. Published 2010 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 24 6897531 The Johns Hopkins University Press 2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218-4363 www.press.jhu.edu Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Barr, Donald A. Questioning the premedical paradigm: enhancing diversity in the medical profession a century after the Flexner report / Donald A. Barr. p. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-8018-9416-9 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-8018-9416-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Premedical education—United States. I. Title. [DNLM: 1. Education, Premedical—United States. 2. Cultural Diversity— United States. 3. Physicians—United States. W 18 B268q 2010] R838.B37-2010 610.71Ј173—dc22 2009020308 A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006-2007 UCSF Institutional Profile
    INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE FY 2006-07 University of California, San Francisco Institutional Profi le - FY 2006-07 Table of Contents Introduction 1 UCSF at a Glance 7 Summary Statistics 19 Faculty 23 Staff 35 Students 43 Rankings 77 UCSF History 85 A History of the UCSF School of Dentistry 89 A History of the UCSF School of Medicine 95 A History of the UCSF School of Nursing 161 A History of the UCSF School of Pharmacy 163 Research 167 Financial Data 173 Campus Sites 205 Service & Outreach 225 Departments and Services 226 Resources 228 Health Care Information & Services 234 Education and Outreach Programs for the Community 238 Arts and Recreation 240 News and Events 242 Alumni & Development 243 Chancellor’s Offi ce 253 i University of California, San Francisco Institutional Profi le - FY 2006-07 Table of Contents Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost 261 Academic Affairs 265 Academic Geriatric Research Center (AGRC) 267 Academic Senate 269 Affi rmative Action/Equal Opportunity/Diversity 271 Associate Vice Chancellor-Student Academic Affairs 273 Center for Bioentrepreneurship (CBE) 278 Graduate Division 281 Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute 285 Library 289 Offi ce of Research, Associate Vice Chancellor 292 Offi ce of Research, Assistant Vice Chancellor 298 Offi ce of Technology Management 302 Proctor Foundation 304 Work-Life Resource Center 310 Senior Vice Chancellor of Finance & Administration 315 Audit Management Services 319 Finance 321 Campus Life Services (CLS) 329 Campus Projects and Facilities Management (CPFM) 335 Controller’s Offi ce 337
    [Show full text]
  • Overview Agenda
    OVERVIEW AGENDA CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION http://www.catc.ca.gov April 13-14, 2005 Stockton, California Wednesday, April 13, 2005 1:00 p.m. Workshop – 2006 STIP Fund Estimate Assumptions San Joaquin Council of Governments Auditorium 555 East Weber Avenue Stockton, California 95202 3:15 p.m. or upon completion of the Workshop Commission Meeting San Joaquin Council of Governments Auditorium 555 East Weber Avenue Stockton, California 95202 5:30 p.m. Reception San Joaquin Council of Governments Patio Area 555 East Weber Avenue Stockton, California 95202 7:00 p.m. Commissioner’s Dinner Ernie’s on the Brick Walk 296 Lincoln Center Stockton, California Thursday, April 14, 2005 8:00 a.m. Commission Meeting San Joaquin Council of Governments Auditorium 555 East Weber Avenue Stockton, California 95202 CLOSED SESSION PERTAINING TO LITIGATION: The Commission will meet in closed session, pursuant to Government Code Section 11126(e)(2)(A) to confer with legal counsel with regard to the following litigation: Flying J, Inc. v. California Transportation Commission, et al., Kern County Superior Court, Case No. 253208 SPC. NOTE: The Closed Session will be scheduled in conjunction with the lunch break. Following the lunch break the Commission will reconvene in Open Session. A copy of this meeting notice and agenda will be posted 10 days prior to the meeting and related book items will be posted 5 days prior to the meeting on the California Transportation Commission Website: www.catc.ca.gov Questions or inquiries about this meeting may be directed to the Commission staff at (916) 654-4245, 1120 N Street (MS-52), Sacramento, CA 95814.
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory Update: Tunnels (PDF)
    Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory Update Tunnels Prepared by Jessica B. Feldman, Architectural Historian Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc. 811 West Seventh Street, Suite 800 Los Angeles, California 90017 August 2003 With revisions by David Lemon, Research Associate And Andrew Hope, Associate Environmental Planner California Department of Transportation January 2006 Summary of Findings This report presents the findings of an evaluation of 14 tunnels constructed in California prior to 1960, in accordance with the eligibility criteria for listing properties in the National Register of Historic Places. This tunnel survey updates a portion of the Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory, completed in 1986 by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). There are 49 tunnels in California on state highways and local roads that were built before 1960. Five of these are currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places: three as contributors to the Forts Baker, Barry, and Cronhkite Historic District in Marin County; one as a contributor to the Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Landmark; and one as a component of the San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge. In addition, four tunnels on Highway 110 in Los Angeles are contributors to a pending National Register nomination of the Arroyo Seco Parkway. Seven other tunnels have previously been determined eligible for National Register listing: three which are contributors to the Feather River Highway (State Route 70) in Butte and Plumas Counties; the two Caldecott bores in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; the Posey Tube between the cities of Oakland and Alameda; and the Stockton Street Tunnel in San Francisco. Of the remaining 33 tunnels, four were excluded from the present survey because they are owned and maintained by the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program
    2006 State Transportation Improvement Program Current Official STIP - (STIP funds, RIP and IIP, only) Alameda County Entire State PPNO / EA State Funds by Fiscal Year & Component (IIP & RIP Funds Only) CTIPS ID RESPONSIBLE AGENCY - PROJECT TITLE FUND PEND VOTE VOTED FUNDS PROG (Programmed Dollars in Thousands) DIST CO RTE ELEMENT LOCATION/DESCRIPTION SOURCE LAST DATE TOTAL AMOUNT 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 R/WCON PA&EDPS&E R/W ENG CON ENG 04 ALA 0016Q Alameda County Congestion Management Agency - AB : PM: 106-0000-0972 3090 Reimbursement Project - AB 3090 Reimbursement RIP : 07/20/06 25,037 25,037 25,037 25,037 KP: Local Assistance Project the Route 880 Widening project (PPNO 0016F) : TOTAL: 25,037 25,037 25,037 25,037 04 ALA 1014 0U8601 Bay Area Rapid Transit District - BART Transbay Tube : PM: 106-0000-0750 Seismic Retrofit - In Alameda County from the Transbay RIP : 05/02/01 10,200 48,200 38,000 38,000 10,200 KP: Rail Tube to the West Portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel - : seismic joints, one at-grade station and one aerial station TOTAL: 10,200 48,200 38,000 38,000 10,200 04 ALA 1022 072584 City of Oakland - 42nd Ave/High St Access to I-880 - : PM: 106-0000-0722 Oakland - 42nd Avenue/High Street access improvements to RIP : 04/13/01 1,000 6,990 5,990 5,990 1,000 KP: Local Assistance Route 880 - preliminary engineering : TOTAL: 1,000 6,990 5,990 5,990 1,000 04 ALA 2009A T161TA Alameda Contra Costa Transit District - AC Transit : PM: 0.0/ 0.0 206-0000-2155 Maintenance Facilities Upgrade - In Alameda County: AC RIP : 09/07/06 3,705 3,705 3,705 3,705 KP: 0.0/ 0.0 Mass Transit Transit District-wide facilities & equipment upgrades.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Tunnels — Past, Present and Future 14 Take a Tour of the Busy Underground of NAT 2008’S Host City
    Reader Service Number 1 CONTENTS June CONTENTS2008 Cover Story San Francisco Tunnels — Past, Present and Future 14 Take a tour of the busy underground of NAT 2008’s host city... By Victor S. Romero Napa Valley Wine Caves 18 ...and cap off your stay with a visit to the wine country with a look at wine cave construction. By Jan Van Greunen Features On the Waterfront 20 Beach sewer tunnel emergency repair and rehabilitation project 20 requires boat access to the work site. By Albert Ruiz, David Jurich and Joseph McDivitt 3-D Scanning in Tunneling 25 Fast, accurate measurement is a difficult aspect in tunnel construc- tion, maintenance and redevelopment. By John Stenmark Contractor Claims Against the Owner’s Designer 30 Can a contractor sue an engineer or other design professional directly for misrepresentations in the plans and specifications? By Peter Kutil and Karl Silverberg North American Tunnel Project Update 34 By Jack Burke 25 Columns Editor’s Message . 4 Departments Business Briefs . 6 Global . 12 TBM: Tunnel Business Magazine (ISSN 1553-2917) is published six times per year. Copyright 2008, Benjamin Media Inc., P.O. Box 190, Peninsula, OH 44264. USA All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or trans- Calendar. 40 mitted by any means without written permission from the publisher. One year subscription rates: complimentary in the United States and Canada, and $69 in Products . 41 other foreign countries. Single copy rate: $10. Subscriptions and classified adver- tising should be addressed to the Peninsula office. Postmaster return form 1579 to TBM: Tunnel Business Magazine, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Excerpted from the San Francisco Chronicle
    ADVERTISING FEATURE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE Transforming Care. N10 Advertising Feature • • Sunday, May 22, 2016 A vibrant history of caring for others By Kyla Cathey which reached San Francisco in late 1850 — were difficult to treat At 5:12 a.m. April 18, 1906, a in the tent hospitals that existed violent earthquake shattered the in the city at that time. On April San Francisco morning. Many of 30, 1851, the State Legislature of the buildings that survived the California passed an act creating quake fell to the fires that roared a State Marine Hospital in San through the city. The citizens of Francisco, with $50,000 ear- San Francisco were left refugees marked for its construction. in their own city. Disaster brought 1 1855: The State Marine Hospi- disease in its wake. tal building became the City and But one building survived the County Hospital of San Fran- earthquake: San Francisco Gen- cisco, with Dr. Hugh Toland, a eral remained standing on Potre- doctor from South Carolina, ro Avenue and brought medical serving as the hospital’s surgeon. care and comfort to the city’s 1 shell-shocked residents. 1857: The City and County The hospital, now the Priscilla Hospital purchased the North Chan and Mark Zuckerberg San Beach School, transforming it Francisco General Hospital and into a 150-bed hospital. The Trauma Center, has a tradition of beds were filled quickly, and the helping San Franciscans in need hospital was often overflowing that goes back to its earliest days. with up to 400 patients at a time.
    [Show full text]
  • Leon-S-Peters6.Pdf
    SPECIAL COLLECTIONS RESEARCH CENTER HENRY MADDEN LIBRARY CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO LEON S. PETERS (1905-1983) PAPERS, 1919-2010 and undated (bulk 1950-1988) 7 linear feet ACQUISITION: The papers were donated by Pete Peters in 2009 and Kenneth Peters in 2010. ACCESS: The papers are open for research. AUDIOVISUAL: 8 VHS tapes, 33 digital videocassettes, and 10 DVDs in boxes 1-2. COPYRIGHT: Copyright has been transferred to California State University, Fresno. PHOTOGRAPHS: In boxes 2, 4, 5, 12-15. PROCESSED BY: Adam Wallace, 2009. Leon S. Peters Biography Leon Samuel Peters was born on October 28, 1905, near Fowler, California, to parents Samuel and Lily Peters, the oldest of five children. The Peters family purchased a forty-acre ranch outside of Fowler in 1907 where Peters spent his childhood. Peters attended school in Fowler and graduated from Fowler High School as class valedictorian in 1923. Peters had planned to study law, but the death of his mother shortly before his high school graduation forced him to remain and work on the family farm. From 1926 to 1929 Peters worked for his uncle’s grape packing and shipping business. In 1929 Peters met with representatives of Valley Foundry and Machine Works in order to negotiate the price and installation of a new pump for a well on the Peters ranch. Mr. Firstenberger, the manager of Valley Foundry was so impressed with Peters’s negotiating skills that he remarked that if Peters could “sell like he bought,” he would like to offer him a job. Peters initially turned down the offer because he felt he didn’t have any knowledge about buying, selling or pumps.
    [Show full text]