Anonymously contributed:
At least someone wants LLNL...
Livermore moves forward in bid to annex national labs
By Jeanine Benca
Contra Costa Times
02/26/2011
LIVERMORE -- Livermore hopes to annex the Lawrence Livermore and Sandia California/National laboratories -- one of many steps in a long-range mission to transform the city into a booming technology hub and create thousands of jobs.
The planning commission on Tuesday will consider a proposal to annex 1,022 acres east of Vasco Road, south of Patterson Pass Road and west of Greenville Road. Included is the 1,017-acre area occupied by the two labs; two privately-owned parcels totaling five acres plus a stretch of Greenville Road adjacent to the labs.
The labs lie east of Livermore in unincorporated Alameda County. Annexation would not give the city any more power over the facilities, which are on federal land and therefore not subject to property taxes or local development regulations.
But having the labs within city limits would better align the city limit line with the urban growth boundary. It would also give Livermore more say over impacts on streets and neighborhoods if and when the area around the labs is developed with high-tech companies and other facilities, said Steve Riley, principal planner for the city.
"The primary (goal) is to sort of more formally acknowledge the relationship between the city and labs as we move forward in the future," he said.
Last year, the Livermore Valley was selected by the state Business, Transportation and Housing Agency as one of six future iHubs or Innovation Hubs for Technology Development.
The goal of the program is to foster partnerships among private industry, academia and the labs that will help create jobs and spur the development of green transportation technology.
It also ties into ongoing efforts to create an "open campus" area around the high-security federal labs where private, high-tech business and/or academic development can occur.
If the commission supports the annexation recommendation, it will be sent to the city council for approval. Should the council endorse the project, it will be sent to the Local Agency Formation Commission, which has the final say in all matters involving boundary changes.
At least someone wants LLNL...
Livermore moves forward in bid to annex national labs
By Jeanine Benca
Contra Costa Times
02/26/2011
LIVERMORE -- Livermore hopes to annex the Lawrence Livermore and Sandia California/National laboratories -- one of many steps in a long-range mission to transform the city into a booming technology hub and create thousands of jobs.
The planning commission on Tuesday will consider a proposal to annex 1,022 acres east of Vasco Road, south of Patterson Pass Road and west of Greenville Road. Included is the 1,017-acre area occupied by the two labs; two privately-owned parcels totaling five acres plus a stretch of Greenville Road adjacent to the labs.
The labs lie east of Livermore in unincorporated Alameda County. Annexation would not give the city any more power over the facilities, which are on federal land and therefore not subject to property taxes or local development regulations.
But having the labs within city limits would better align the city limit line with the urban growth boundary. It would also give Livermore more say over impacts on streets and neighborhoods if and when the area around the labs is developed with high-tech companies and other facilities, said Steve Riley, principal planner for the city.
"The primary (goal) is to sort of more formally acknowledge the relationship between the city and labs as we move forward in the future," he said.
Last year, the Livermore Valley was selected by the state Business, Transportation and Housing Agency as one of six future iHubs or Innovation Hubs for Technology Development.
The goal of the program is to foster partnerships among private industry, academia and the labs that will help create jobs and spur the development of green transportation technology.
It also ties into ongoing efforts to create an "open campus" area around the high-security federal labs where private, high-tech business and/or academic development can occur.
If the commission supports the annexation recommendation, it will be sent to the city council for approval. Should the council endorse the project, it will be sent to the Local Agency Formation Commission, which has the final say in all matters involving boundary changes.
Comments
DOE is already significantly redistributing the important SNM mission-space to LANL and the emerging Harry-Reid-supported NTS.
Even though NSTech-lead NTS is not competent to support a larger weapons mission-space and LANL is in decline; both benefit from larger, remote locations and much stronger local and congressional support. They are also lead by better strategic politicians.
In the upcoming budget pinch, now hidden by D'Agostino under the disguise of complex modernization, LLNL, facing local opposition, city oversight, tepid and sporadic congressional support, and lacking a local SNM infrastructure faces a continuing uphill battle to keep significant weapons responsibility there.
Will the city's attempted annexation tip the scales toward the remote sites and jeopardize NNSA funding to LLNL?
They may annex an abandoned eyesore.
In fact, I would start by demanding the per capita amount that NNSA gifts to the deadbeat hamlet of Los Alamos.
In no case should city citizens spend an unreimbursed dime, nor annex a liability like the polluted, radiation-contaminated antiquated physical plant without say $50-$100M per year in compensatory tax revenues.
You break it. You own it.
Caveat emptor.
Set the expectation that they demand that NNSA to be a good neighbor, no more damaging to the too nearby City of Livermore than a field of clover.
You don't want either LLNS charlatans nor NNSA liars to have a chance to grasp your checkbook.
Beyond HOPING that commercial (and tax paying) clients start building on/around LLNL/Sandia Ca, what is the motive here? Why the wait of a half century to push this agenda? Possible land for the 2000 seat playhouse if downtown doesn't work?
March 1, 2011 8:11 PM
Maybe because NNSA is starting to send signals that LLNL and SNL may be closed soon? And BTW 7:06 pm, why do you think LLNL is a "dangerous" neighbor?? Also, you forgot to mention Los Alamos is a crime-free, excellent school, highest per capita PhD county in the US "hamlet."
At first glance the largest gain is the ability to apply the local business tax to the corporate ventures now operating the laboratory sites. Biggest liability may be police cruisers patroling Greenville Road.
When the SNM leaves town, does East Avenue re-open with the possibility of Livermore police catching speeders thus filling the city coffers? Do they think they are getting a stronger voice in the future of the lab?
Are you asking the blog, which is fruitless and pointless, or asking your elected officials? Which is more likely to get you real answers?