Carson residents press council over battery storage site near school and medical office

Carson officials and dozens of residents debated a proposed battery energy storage system (BESS) at 1800 Broadway during a district town hall, with neighbors, public‑health advocates and union representatives trading sharply different views on safety, oversight and local benefits.

Planning Manager Makena Alexander told the meeting the site would include about 138 battery enclosures, an on‑site substation and underground lines to a nearby Edison substation. Alexander said the project initially carried a CEQA exemption at the local level, the planning commission weighed site‑specific risks and on March 10 voted 5–2 to deny the project for land‑use compatibility and public‑safety concerns. She said the applicant appealed and the City Council reversed that denial on May 5 by a 3–2 vote, directing staff to prepare a resolution, ordinance and development agreement for council consideration on May 20.

"These batteries are typically housed in metal containers with modules and control systems," Alexander said, noting emergency‑response issues including "thermal runaway," long‑duration fires and potential impacts to nearby "sensitive receptors," which she identified as Towne Avenue Elementary School, a Kaiser medical office and Victoria Park.

Residents urged the city to require a full environmental impact report. "An EIR is not anti‑development," community member Lauren Miles said. "It's due diligence. Since new information has emerged about the company's record, the city should revisit the CEQA exemption." Miles also named a parent company, Ormat Technologies, and cited alleged enforcement actions; those allegations were made from the public comment microphone and were not adjudicated at the meeting.

Several speakers described acute worries about health, property values and insurance costs if a high‑risk industrial use sits next to homes, a school and medical services. "If there's an incident, will homeowners' rates shoot sky‑high?" one resident asked. Staff and a resident technician who identified himself as a battery storage worker countered that modern sites use on‑site monitoring and safety procedures. "These battery storage units are safe," said Richard Anthony, a technician and Carson resident who described routine inspections and 24/7 monitoring.

Assistant City Attorney Ben Jones presented a draft package of community benefits the city is negotiating if the project proceeds under local review. Jones listed measures including development impact fees (he cited options near $200,000 and other maintenance figures), a battery purchase fee (he cited a range of $250,000 to $1.5 million), an escrow for emergency‑response costs (he cited $500,000 as a starting amount), required on‑site monitoring with 24/7 staff, annual safety meetings with first responders, a 13‑foot engineered perimeter wall, a decommissioning bond, and commitments to paid internships and youth programming. Jones said the developer would be required to pay the cost of emergency responses and that the city could increase escrow or bond amounts when the council reviews the agreement.

Mayor Lula Davis Holmes framed the choice facing the city as one between local oversight and the risk of the developer pursuing state review. Alexander and Jones explained that projects can "opt in" to the California Energy Commission (CEC) under Assembly Bill 205 (as referenced by staff); if the developer goes to the state, the city would have less leverage over community benefits and local conditions.

The council has scheduled a public council meeting to consider the staff‑prepared resolution and ordinance on May 20 at 6 p.m. in council chambers. City staff urged residents who want to influence outcomes to attend that meeting and the LA County Board of Supervisors hearing May 19 at Kenneth Hahn Hall.