“/>

Photo credit: cruise

Self-driving vehicle makers Waymo and Cruise are close to final approval to begin charging 24/7 fares for fully autonomous robotaxi rides throughout the city of San Francisco.

Amid the city’s growing opposition to the presence of AVs, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) released two draft resolutions late last week that would give Cruise and Waymo the ability to extend the operating hours and service areas of their now-limited robotaxi services.

The drafts are dated for hearing on June 29 and there is still room for public comment due May 31. Based on the wording of the CPUC draft, many of the protests raised by the City of San Francisco have already been rejected.

City authorities have alerted a number of (mainly) cruise ships that have malfunctioned and stopped in the middle of intersections or even light rail lines, disrupting traffic flow and hampering both public transport and emergency services. The series of incidents, documented on social media and online forums, has led to an investigation into Cruise by the National Highway Traffic Safety Association.

In light of these examples, the city has urged the CPUC to tread carefully, set up workshops, collect more data, ban the use of robo-taxis in downtown and peak hours, and limit fleet size expansion.

Robotaxis have already caused both traffic flow and safety problems in the city, which will only get worse once unlimited numbers of AVs flood the city, the city argues. Neither Cruise nor Waymo would share exactly how many AVs they currently have in San Francisco. A Waymo spokesman said the company has “a couple hundred cars” in each of its fully autonomous “Waymo One” branded service areas.

“San Francisco raises concerns about extending commercial service into the peak hours of the day, as cancellations and delays are likely to affect significantly more passengers both on affected transit lines and throughout the system,” San Francisco’s summary of objections read the CPUC Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority (SFMTA), the SF County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and the Mayor’s Office of Disability.

“Additionally, San Francisco describes unplanned stops and unsafe maneuvers by Cruise AVs that have impacted responders. This includes incidents where a Cruise AV interfered with a fire engine en route to an emergency, ran over a fire hose, or improperly entered an emergency location.”

The CPUC has countered that San Francisco’s arguments are not “within the grounds for a proper protest” because it “would require reconsideration of a prior commission order” and because a protest is not “just based on political objections”. could support. The commission also found that the California Department of Motor Vehicles, and not the CPUC, has authority over Cruise and Waymo’s approved operational design areas, which include service areas and hours of operation.

While city officials have made clear their objections to the CPUC’s approval, Cruise and Waymo have each received supportive responses from 38 stakeholders (mostly the same stakeholders), including elected officials, local groups, accessibility advocates, technology industry groups, and corporate and economic development organizations. Supporters include: The American Council of the Blind, Autonomous Vehicles Industry Association, Consumer Technology Association, Richmond Neighborhood Center, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and Silicon Valley Leadership Group.

“We’re proud that the overwhelming majority of public comments — including advocates from the disability community, small businesses and local community groups — support expanding Cruise’s all-electric driverless service city-wide,” said Hannah Lindow, director of Policy Communications at Cruise, TechCrunch said.

In San Francisco, Cruise and Waymo had to obtain a series of permits from city officials to put robotic taxis on the streets. The DMV approves applications to test and deploy autonomous vehicles, and the CPUC grants permission to charge fares to passengers.

Cruise’s current permits allow it to offer paid passenger service in limited areas of San Francisco from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., as well as free passenger service citywide anytime of the day – both without the presence of a security driver. Cruise has only been open since the end of April fully autonomous city-wide service for employees.

Waymo’s paid service, available 24/7 throughout San Francisco, requires a human security driver to be present. The company’s fully autonomous (i.e. driving without a safety driver) robotaxi service, which operates throughout the city, will continue to be free. Waymo also offers complimentary safety driver service in parts of Los Angeles and in and around Mountain View.

If the CPUC allows the two competitors to charge passengers for driverless rides, Waymo and Cruise will have equal rights in the city. At least from a regulatory point of view.

Receipt of approval does not mean that Waymo and Cruise will immediately begin full-scale commercial operations in San Francisco.

A Waymo spokesperson said the company intends to “expand prudently, with safety as its top priority.”

Cruise did not comment on how the company plans to expand across San Francisco.

Update: This article has been updated with comment from Cruise and information on stakeholders supporting the CPUC’s granting of permits to Cruise and Waymo.

The post Cruise, Waymo close to approval to cost for twenty-four/7 robotaxis in San Francisco appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has launched a new investigation to get to the bottom of San Francisco’s infamously long permit approval times. Developers commonly cite approval times as a pain point in trying to build in the city, and the investigation will aim to understand and alleviate the problem, along with the high cost of building in the city.

Gustavo Velasquez, HCD Director, said in a press release that the state is concerned about the political decision-making in San Francisco that delays and impedes the creation of new housing. The investigation should last at least 9 months, and the University of California, Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development will assist the state. The goal is to increase San Francisco’s housing supply and speed up the overall process for project approval.

San Francisco has been a frequent target of bad press lately, including its dismal return-to-the-office occupancy rates compared to other California cities like San Jose. But San Francisco isn’t the only city that has struggled with building permitting delays. Cities like Dallas and Portland, Oregon, have had similar problems lately, and many stakeholders in the real estate industry are hoping public pressure and new technology can speed up the permit approval process.

The post San Francisco’s Lengthy Allow Approval Instances is Below Investigation appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has launched a new investigation to get to the bottom of San Francisco’s infamously long permit approval times. Developers commonly cite approval times as a pain point in trying to build in the city, and the investigation will aim to understand and alleviate the problem, along with the high cost of building in the city.

Gustavo Velasquez, HCD Director, said in a press release that the state is concerned about the political decision-making in San Francisco that delays and impedes the creation of new housing. The investigation should last at least 9 months, and the University of California, Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development will assist the state. The goal is to increase San Francisco’s housing supply and speed up the overall process for project approval.

San Francisco has been a frequent target of bad press lately, including its dismal return-to-the-office occupancy rates compared to other California cities like San Jose. But San Francisco isn’t the only city that has struggled with building permitting delays. Cities like Dallas and Portland, Oregon, have had similar problems lately, and many stakeholders in the real estate industry are hoping public pressure and new technology can speed up the permit approval process.

The post San Francisco’s Lengthy Allow Approval Instances is Underneath Investigation appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

South San Francisco has given biotechnology the go-ahead to continue booming.

On Tuesday evening, the city council approved Genentech’s massive expansion plan to nearly double the headquarters’ campus by adding it to 4.3 million square feet over 15 years. The long-term plan, one of the Bay Area’s largest real estate projects, is a sign that the biotech industry will remain an area of ​​growth for a coronavirus-torn regional economy.

“It’s been a fantastic partnership and this master plan literally gives us the flexibility and space to ensure we continue to have the positive impact we have on the local community,” said Genentech CEO Alexander Hardy said in an interview before the vote.

Individual new buildings require future permits and there are no plans for immediate expansion, Hardy said. New buildings would be constructed on the company’s existing 207 hectare campus to replace parking lots or older buildings.

The company employs around 15,000 people, 10,000 of them in the Bay Area. About half have worked remotely, but many workers continue to go to laboratories, Hardy said. The company has around 700 vacancies.

“We really have a phenomenal campus. It’s such an important part of Genentech, ”he said. “Although remote working has increased, the campus will remain a really important part of Genentech’s future.”

South San Francisco city councils watch a presentation Tuesday on Genentech’s 15-year expansion plan, which they later approved.

South San Francisco

Genentech is working on 10 drugs that could potentially treat COVID-19, including Actemra. It has partnered with Regeneron to make the antibody cocktail of casirivimab and imdevimab, drugs that President Trump was given to treat his coronavirus.

Founded in 1976, Genentech pioneered the use of DNA technology to develop drugs – for example, the manufacture of synthetic insulin for the treatment of diabetes. The company is a subsidiary of the Swiss healthcare giant Roche.

As part of the expansion, Genentech will pay at least $ 30 million in city fees to fund affordable housing, and more than $ 30 million after construction is complete, and $ 15 million in transportation modernization fees. Fees include $ 1 million to finance residential units or small backyard houses managed by the nonprofit Hello Housing.

The plan was originally proposed in 2017 and required a full environmental assessment.

“This is the culmination of over three years of work,” said Mike Futrell, South San Francisco city manager, at the hearing on Tuesday.

Roland Li is a contributor to the San Francisco Chronicle. Email: roland.li@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @rolandlisf

The post Genentech wins approval for enormous headquarters enlargement in South San Francisco appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

As the US continues to have a surplus of protective Covid vaccines, some experts hope that a transition from the EEA to full approval status for the two mRNA vaccines will boost public confidence in them and, in turn, just increase the country’s vaccination rates It’s time to block the resurgence of Covid we’re seeing elsewhere, powered by the Delta variant.

While such a rapid upward shift can have this immediate effect, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the FDA will likely review the Pfizer / BioNTech and Moderna vaccines in record time. And their huge pool of real safety and manufacturing data doesn’t make that easy. Even so, the FDA plans to have its Covid vaccine regulatory exams take about half the time (3-4 months) it currently takes the agency to sign a priority drug / vaccine application (6 months) and only a fraction of that the time for a new application that is not accelerated (12 months).

There is no question that the agency should pick up the pace on both Pfizer and Moderna’s filings. Employers may be more willing to push for mandates once vaccines are fully approved. Let’s not forget the reason we find ourselves in this enviable position, with nearly 160 million people fully vaccinated in just over a year and a half since the pandemic began in the US: the FDA was able to quickly improve the outstanding effectiveness of both data To provide vaccines and to ensure that the manufacturing process was robust enough and could be replicated in such a way that all of these hundreds of millions of doses could be made safely and efficiently.

A push from the EUA to full approval does not help the millions of Americans who are still not vaccinated, they may hesitate or be completely against the idea because of the EUA status. And with the EEA transitioning to full approval, employers across the country need to be strong and require vaccinations so we can stay protected. As lawyers have indicated, it is not illegal to require vaccines to be administered under EUAs.

Eric Topol, Professor of Molecular Medicine at Scripps Research, recently penned a comment in the New York Times urging the FDA to now fully approve the mRNA vaccines. independent research and the experience of millions of people around the world who have received it. “

However, FDA reviews of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have taken less than 3 months to complete. And there is nothing in the EEA or real world data for the Moderna or the Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine that should initiate a pause or in any way suggest that the vaccine’s clinical data package is not comparable to other mandatory vaccines that already have the have received full approval.

And while some seem to suggest that the FDA is stretching its feet, the size (thousands of pages long) and complexity of a full package of approvals shouldn’t be taken lightly. If the FDA takes longer to make sure the vaccines are made properly enough to get full approval, so be it.

Peter Marks

As FDA Chief Vaccine Officer Peter Marks made it clear from the start, vaccines were released at a higher bar than the other treatments EUAs received, and the American public should trust vaccines under EUAs as much as under full approvals.

For those who remain unvaccinated, in a stakeholder call last week, Marks and Janet Woodcock reiterated the urgent need to move now, even with the very rare risk of myocarditis in mostly younger men. The CDC also made it clear on Tuesday evening that now more than half of all cases in the USA can be traced back to the Delta variant from India.

“The delta variant is increasing in this country and its incidence could double about every week, and experts expect it to be the dominant variant within a month or so,” said Woodcock. The time for vaccination is now, with or without permission.

The post The FDA’s mRNA vaccine full approval critiques are shifting a lot quick. Begin the mandates now – Endpoints Information appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The A’s will scour other markets for potential relocations under instructions from Major League Baseball while they continue to watch the construction of a new waterfront ballpark in downtown Oakland, the team said Tuesday.

A new stadium has long been a priority for the A’s, who proposed a 35,000-seat baseball stadium at the downtown Howard Terminal site and accompanying mixed-use development, a $ 12 billion project.

The opening of the relocation facility could add urgency as the A’s have asked Oakland City Council to vote on the proposal by July.

“The future success of the A depends on a new ballpark,” A owner John Fisher said in a statement Tuesday. “Oakland is a great baseball city and we will continue to pursue our waterfront ballpark project. We will also be following MLB’s direction to explore other markets. “

The A play in the outdated Coliseum, their home since 1968, and in recent years the NFL Raiders and NBA Warriors have left Oakland to move to Las Vegas and San Francisco, respectively. The proposed Howard Terminal ballpark, which is expected to cost more than $ 1 billion and will be funded by private funding and project-related revenues, is the furthest step the team has taken in building a new home in Oakland.

In addition to the baseball stadium, the proposed project includes 3,000 residential units, 1.5 million square meters of office space and 270,000 square meters of retail space. According to A’s proposal, the project is expected to generate $ 955 million for the Oakland City General Fund and $ 450 million for social benefits. It is also proposed to use $ 855 million in tax revenue from the site to fund infrastructure costs.

Major League Baseball said in a statement Tuesday it was “concerned about the progress of the A-ballpark’s new efforts with local officials and other stakeholders in Oakland.”

“The A’s have been working very hard over the past four years to build a new ballpark in downtown Oakland. They have invested significant resources while facing multiple roadblocks,” the MLB statement said. “We know they continue to be very committed to success in Oakland. With two other sports franchises recently leaving the community, their commitment to Oakland is more important than ever.

“The Oakland Coliseum location is not a viable option for baseball’s vision of the future. We’ve directed athletics to explore other markets while they continue to operate a waterfront ballpark in Oakland. Athletics needs a new baseball field to stay competitive. So it is now in our best interests to consider other markets as well. “

Justin Berton, a spokesman for Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, said in a statement: “We share the urgency of MLB and their continued preference for Oakland.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf (right) answers questions while A President Dave Kaval looks on during a press conference at A’s corporate headquarters in Oakland, California. Wednesday, November 28, 2018, announces early plans for the construction of a new ballpark at the Howard Terminal.

Jessica Christian / The Chronicle

“Today’s statement makes it clear that the only viable way to get the A’s roots in Oakland is to have a waterfront ballpark. … Now with the recent start of the financial discussions with the A’s, we are calling on our entire community – including regional and local partners – to band together and support a new, financially viable, fiscally responsible, world-class waterfront neighborhood that will benefit our city and City improves region and keeps the A’s in Oakland where they belong. “

As recently as last year, the A’s may have wanted to open the Howard Terminal baseball stadium in 2023. However, A President Dave Kaval said in an interview Tuesday that due to delays, “the earliest event could likely be 2027”.

The lease of the A in the Coliseum ends after the 2024 season, but could probably be extended. Kaval said MLB’s direction on Tuesday was “a confirmation that time is running out, that we really need clarity about our future and the location of our home.

“We have a great vision for a downtown baseball stadium at the Howard Terminal,” said Kaval. “But for the same reason, progress in this area has not been rapid enough and we are concerned, as is the state-of-the-art league.”

Kaval has asked Oakland City Council to vote on the project before the summer break. Council chairman Nikki Fortunato Bas said in a statement Tuesday that the council “has a duty to keep the A’s in Oakland”.

“I met Dave Kaval on April 30th and told him that the leadership of the council … is ready to meet with A to discuss the project,” Bas said. “You did not reply and I tried to repeat our offer today. We are also waiting for additional information from the A’s about the project so that the city staff can plan the term sheet for the city council. “

Opponents of the project raised concerns about the impact on transportation and the environment, saying it would affect the shipping business in the Port of Oakland. The East Oakland Stadium Alliance, which opposes the project, has asked the A’s to explore the building at the Coliseum site.

“If they were to focus on rebuilding the Colosseum, which is already approved for a new stadium village, there would be no threats to force the city to give away public funds to support a luxury development complex in the region’s industrial job center,” said the group in a statement.

A’s ideas for a ballpark near Laney College in Oakland or a move to Fremont or San Jose failed. According to ESPN, Las Vegas, the current home of the A’s Triple A daughter, would be the “most likely option” for the A if they moved. Commissioner Rob Manfred previously listed Las Vegas, along with Montreal, as a candidate city for a possible MLB expansion. Portland, Ore .; Charlotte, NC; Nashville and Vancouver, British Columbia.

Kaval said it was “a real (MLBs) decision as to which locations we would look at.” … But this process will begin immediately. “

Tuesday’s news came with the A’s in Boston to start a series against the Red Sox. On the field, the A’s have had a successful run in the last few seasons and reached the playoffs for three consecutive years. Manager Bob Melvin, a native of the Bay Area, said Tuesday afternoon the news “certainly doesn’t preclude the A’s from building an Oakland stadium and the team is” focused on playing. “

“The A’s have long been an important organization in Oakland,” said Melvin. “I think that’s still the hope. … We continue to play in Oakland. Until something really changes, it’s the same for me and the same feeling that I’ve always played there. “

Matt Kawahara covers the A’s for The San Francisco Chronicle. Email: mkawahara@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @matthewkawahara

The post MLB offers A’s approval to discover transferring to a different market appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.