Planning commission backs Grand Hope medical office with modified parking requirement

The Carlsbad Planning Commission on Oct. 16 recommended approval of the Grand Hope Medical Office site development plan, subject to conditions and an altered parking configuration intended to balance state parking limits and local access. The commission voted 5–2 to approve the project and a standards modification after debating whether all eight proposed on-site spaces should be reserved for electric vehicles.

Staff said the project proposes to demolish a one‑story building and construct a two‑story, 10,671‑square‑foot medical office on a 0.16‑acre corner lot in the Village and Barrio master plan area. City planner Eric Lardy told the commission the building would stand about 34 feet tall, under the Village Center 45‑foot maximum, and that the applicant seeks a modification from a building‑massing stepback standard because a ground‑floor façade along Hope Avenue stretches about 66 feet.

The applicant originally proposed eight fully installed EV spaces, exceeding the state‑minimum parking provision under AB 2097, which limits local parking requirements within a half‑mile of transit. "Our intent was to try to provide as much parking on the site as possible," said Kirk Mueller of CAM Architects, who represented the project team, and explained that site size and cost constraints precluded a full underground garage and led to use of mechanical lifts for some stalls.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on remedial grading, parking depth and historic context. Associate engineer David Rick explained remedial grading would be roughly 700 cubic yards and typically extend about 3–5 feet below existing grade. Staff said the on‑site parking proposal satisfies the state law minimum — one installed EV and one ADA stall plus EV‑capable stalls — but the applicant offered eight installed EV stalls as a concession and a basis for the standards modification.

Concerns centered on whether reserving most spaces for EVs would leave patients and visitors without places to park. "If they're all restricted to EV, we're going to have a bunch of people crowding the streets and empty parking places in the building," said Commissioner Myers, arguing for flexibility. Assistant community development director Mike Strong warned that converting installed EV stalls to regular spaces after approval could violate the project's conditions, because those EV stalls were part of the rationale for the modification.

Commissioner Stein moved to approve the project with a revised parking condition — three non‑EV spaces, four EV spaces and one disabled stall — saying that a diversity of parking options best serves the public in a tightly constrained downtown area. Commissioner Mains seconded. The motion passed 5–2, with Stein, Means, Murs, Dana and Hoebinger voting yes and Commissioners Cameron, Jerren and Lafferty voting no.

One member of the public, Mary Anne Viney, spoke during public comment urging the commission to preserve village character and to include contextual renderings that show how new buildings relate to adjacent historic structures. Staff noted the existing building dates to about 1949 and that a 2013 permit expanded the dental office into one commercial space.

The planning commission's decision is a recommendation; final action will occur at a future city council meeting. The staff report and resolution include the full findings and conditions of approval.