Blog purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Blog rules

  • Stay on topic.
  • No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
  • NO NAME CALLING.
  • No political debate.
  • Posts and comments are posted several times a day.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Livermore Moves Closer to Annexing National Lab Properties

Anonymously contributed:

Expanded city limits linked to economic development efforts.
By James Brice (livermore.patch.com)
March 2, 2011

A plan to bring the campuses of Lawrence Livermore and Sandia California national laboratories inside the city limits of Livermore moved closer to reality Tuesday with a unanimous vote of the city’s planning commission to recommend the proposal to the City Council.

The annexation plan would expand Livermore’s southeastern boundaries to cover 15 land parcels covering 1,022 acres east of Vasco Road, south of Patterson Pass Road and west of Greenville Road.

The property includes the 627-acre campus of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the 390-acre site of Sandia California National Laboratory. The land is now in an unincorporated area of Alameda County. The labs' campuses are owned by the federal government.

Two privately-owned parcels covering five acres composed of a private residence and vacant lot, and Greenville Road right-of-way between Patterson Pass Road and about 400 feet south of East Avenue to the South Bay Aqueduct also would be included in the city limits.

The proposal drew few comments and no opposition before Tuesday night’s vote, though several members expressed support for arguments favoring annexation in a 15-page analysis by the city’s planning staff.

It said annexation could aid economic development through the Green Advanced Transportation Excellence (i-GATE) Innovation Hub (iHub), a long-term collaboration between lab scientists, Las Positas College and private businesses. The report estimated that i-GATE could create more than 5,000 jobs and add more than $1 billion to the local economy in less than 10 years.

The Livermore Valley was identified by California state government in February 2010 as one of six inaugural hubs to warrant i-GATE iHub designation.

Though more than 30 East Bay agencies and organization are involved, the participation of LLNL and Sandia was considered pivotal for the initiative.

LLNL and Sandia California fulfill broadly based research and development roles for the Departments of Energy and Defense, and intelligence communities. Their scientists design nuclear weapons for the Department of Defense and assure the integrity of the nation’s nuclear arsenal. Their missions recently have shifted in step with the expanded mission of the DOE into alternative-energy development and strategies to fight global warming.

The Livermore annexation effort was first proposed in mid-2009, about the same time city officials began lobbying the state for iHUB designation, according to Rob White, Livermore’s economic development director and iHUB coordinator.

If adopted, the annexation plan would set aside about 200 acres of LLNL property at the intersection of Greenville Road and East Ave for a Livermore Open Campus, as a site devoted to public-private research collaborations, White said in an interview after the vote.

“Annexation is consistent with the laboratories’ goals, the city’s goals and the Innovation Hub’s goals,” he said.

The annexation plan will assure appropriate transportation access to the open campus along Greenville Avenue and that research facilities built on campus meet the needs of its lab, academic, and commercial collaborators.

“We want to make sure that everyone is on the same page,” White said. “(Annexation will) allow us to coordinate this in a way that Alameda County was unable to coordinate.”

The Livermore City Council will hear public comments about the annexation proposal at its March 14 meeting. An expanded staff report will be available for review at City Hall on March 10 after 3:30 p.m.

If adopted, the plan will be forwarded to Alameda County’s Local Agency Formation Commission for final action.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

My prediction is that the public meetings will be full of craziness, highlighted by anti-nukes, green-energy crazies, anti-incorporation libertarians, Tea Party nuts, military-industrial-complex opponents stuck in the sixties, enviro-nazis, global warming cultists, and just plain hippies, mostly stoned already (good for them). Glad I won't be around to see it. California Dreamin'

Anonymous said...

A bad idea. Livermore will be annexing a white elephant.

If it had any place in the DOE future, the micormanaging turf-warriors of DOE wouldn't release control.

Negotiate better. Stand pat. Learn from the remediation of Hanford and the closure and cleanup of Rocky Flats.

Let it be. When LLNL begins to falter as DOE tries to close it over the next 10 years, bring environmental lawsuits naming specific DOE and LLNS persons as liable, with injury multipliers and ask $1-2 B per year from Congress to clean it up and re-deploy it.

Begin collecting the relevant data now thru FOI inquiries.

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days