The Carlsbad City Council voted unanimously to reject proposals from Forefront Licensing to perform a feasibility study for a solar-plus-storage project at the Merkle Reservoir site and directed staff to return with additional site options and analysis.

Supporters of the study said a utility‑scale solar-plus-storage installation could lower operating energy costs and advance city climate goals. Opponents — many of them residents of nearby Vista and Oceanside neighborhoods — raised safety and quality‑of‑life concerns, especially about large lithium‑ion battery storage in a high fire‑severity zone and constrained emergency access.

Council heard more than a dozen public speakers during the discussion. Those urging approval included Barbara Diamond, who said the proposal “could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve our air and demonstrate leadership,” and Mike McMahon, who cited examples of other California water agencies that have used solar and storage to cut costs and add resilience. Opponents included multiple residents of the adjacent C Vista, Chateau Del Norte and Ocean Hills Country Club communities who warned of fire risk, insurance impacts and property‑value losses if battery storage were sited near homes.

Staff described a two‑phase approach to the work. Phase 1 — the study Forefront proposed — would have defined energy generation and battery storage capacities, financing and operating models (likely power purchase agreements), site constraints, grid connection challenges and initial environmental permitting needs. City staff reported phase‑1 consulting and estimated staff costs of $495,904; a possible phase 2 30% conceptual design and permitting effort was estimated at $828,000. Staff said funds were currently allocated for phase 1 if the board moved forward.

Fire and emergency officials told the council the Merkle site is within a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) very high fire severity zone and has constrained vehicle access. Fire Chief Calderwood described lithium‑ion battery fires as prone to thermal runaway and difficult to extinguish, producing toxic smoke and often requiring multi‑agency unified command and prolonged response. Vista Fire was identified as the likely first‑in fire agency for the site; the council heard concerns about evacuations, smoke plumes over senior communities and impacts on regional mutual‑aid resources.

After questions and debate, the council first passed a motion directing staff to return to the council with an analysis of additional potential sites and city‑owned properties for solar or microgrid opportunities. Later the council approved a second motion — put forward by Councilmember Shin and seconded by Councilmember Burkholder — to reject Forefront's proposals for the Merkle Reservoir feasibility study. Both votes were unanimous.

The council's actions leave open pursuing local clean energy projects at alternative locations, and staff said they would report back on possible sites, CEQA requirements and financing options. Staff also noted that any future project at Merkle would require a full environmental review and multi‑agency coordination.

Council members stressed the decision was about the location and the need to balance climate goals with public safety and neighborhood impacts. Several members said they support local renewable energy in principle but not at this particular site.

The City Clerk recorded unanimous votes on both actions; no contracts were executed at this meeting.