TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, City Manager
FROM:
Masa Alkire, Community Development Director
Adam Finestone, Planning Manager
Tari Kuvhenguhwa, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:Title
Project Pulse Status Update Related to the Public Engagement Program and Redevelopment Options for City-Owned Properties Located at 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard (Former US Bank Building) and 1155 Morningside Drive (Parking Lot 3) (No Immediate Budget Impact) (Community Development Director Alkire).
(Estimated Time: 1 Hr. 30 Mins.)
DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION
Body
_________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update, discuss and provide direction regarding the redevelopment of City-owned properties located at the 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard (former US Bank building) and 1155 Morningside Drive (Parking Lot 3), also known as Project Pulse.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the August 26, 2025, City Council meeting, the City Council directed City staff to begin implementing a public engagement program (named ‘Project Pulse’) related to the future redevelopment of two City-owned properties. The two properties are located at 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard (former US Bank building) and 1155 Morningside Drive (Parking Lot 3). This comprehensive community engagement and visioning process will run through July 2026 and City Council is expected to make a decision on future uses in August 2026.
The first round of public outreach and engagement concluded in December 2025 and included both in-person and virtual activities, including booths at the Hometown Fair and farmers’ market, a community opinion survey (via phone), meetings with community partners (Downtown Business and Professional Association, Chamber of Commerce, North Manhattan Beach BID), and resident and business/commercial property owner focus groups. As part of the outreach and engagement, a list of nine potential development options were presented for each property. For Parking Lot 3, the most popular option was a parking structure, with open space/park being the second most popular, and mixed-use development being the third. For 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, open space/park was the most popular option, with mixed-use development being the second, and cultural arts/community space being the third most popular. The three least popular options for both properties were hotel, social club, and visitor center.
To remain on-schedule to bring a preliminary design package to the City Council by August 2026, direction from the City Council reducing the number of redevelopment options under consideration for each property is needed. Staff will move forward with additional public engagement based on the reduced number of options for each property.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
At this time, design services related to the redevelopment of 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard have been partially-budgeted through a $784,000 allocation in the FY 26 - 30 Capital Improvement Program. (The total FY 26 allocation related to 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard is $1,000,000, however $216,000 is specifically earmarked for demolition of the existing structure, should that occur.) City staff anticipates a potential need to allocate an additional $1,000,000 in the coming fiscal years to fully fund design services. Funding for design services for the redevelopment of Parking Lot 3 has not been allocated at this time and will need to be addressed as part of a future capital improvement program. Funding for construction of projects at either site has also not yet been allocated, and staff will return with potential funding sources for that work based on City Council direction at a future meeting.
BACKGROUND:
In the spring of 2025, City staff established “Project Pulse” as a coordinated approach for the redevelopment of two City-owned properties in downtown Manhattan Beach: 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard (formerly U.S. Bank) and Parking Lot 3 (1155 Morningside Drive). The name Project Pulse represents a commitment on behalf of the City to keep its collective finger on the pulse of the community with regard to the future of development in downtown Manhattan Beach.
At the May 6, 2025, City Council meeting, the City Council approved temporary uses for 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard until a permanent use is identified. The approved temporary uses included the use of the existing parking lot as overflow parking for the City’s commercial/merchant parking permit program, and the installation of bicycle racks at the site. Twenty-six parking spaces have been striped in the lot for commercial parking permit holders and the bicycle racks were installed along the Manhattan Beach Boulevard frontage in June 2025.
A community kick-off meeting was held on May 21, 2025, to introduce the Project Pulse work effort to the community and offer an opportunity for initial public input on redevelopment options.
At an adjourned City Council meeting on August 26, 2025, City Council held a study session on Project Pulse to discuss the redevelopment of both properties and consider an associated public engagement program. The City Council discussed the redevelopment options that had been discussed originally for Parking Lot 3 (prior to the acquisition of 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard), options suggested by community members during the May 2025 Project Pulse kick-off meeting, as well as options suggested by the public during the meeting.
At the end of the meeting, the City Council refined the list of potential redevelopment options for City staff to seek additional community input on, as follows:
1. Commercial development
2. Cultural arts/community space
3. Hotel
4. Mixed-use development
5. Multi-family residential
6. Open space/park
7. Parking structure
8. Social club
9. Visitor center
Additionally, City Council approved an associated public engagement program that outlined the community outreach and engagement methods that City staff would use to collect input on the redevelopment of both properties. A copy of the staff report and presentation materials from the August 26, 2025, City Council study session is included as Attachment 2 to this report.
At the November 3, 2025, City Council meeting, City Council discussed potential parking management strategies and a parking management toolkit as part of the City’s current Parking Management Study work effort. During that meeting, the topic of paid public parking as a potential interim use for 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, until the future project is ready to be constructed, was raised. No direction was provided to staff to pursue this option at the time.
DISCUSSION:
Public Engagement Program Update
After the August 26, 2025, City Council study session, City staff commenced implementation of the public engagement program. This comprehensive community engagement and visioning process will run through July 2026 and City Council is expected to make a decision on future uses in August 2026.
2025 Community Opinion Survey
Between late September and early October 2025, True North Research, on behalf of the City, conducted a statistically valid phone survey of 588 residents to measure satisfaction with City services and gather input on policy priorities. This survey included a question related to Project Pulse, which asked the residents to rank the current list of nine options as high, medium, or low priority. The high and medium priority responses have been combined and are provided in order from highest to lowest below. (Respondents were permitted to rank multiple redevelopment options as high, medium, or low priority so totals exceed 100 percent.)
• Parking Structure:
o High/Medium Priority: 64.8%
o Low Priority: 21%
o Should Not Be a Priority:13%
• Open Space/Park:
o High/Medium Priority: 60%
o Low Priority: 23%
o Should Not Be a Priority: 15%
• Commercial Development:
o High/Medium Priority: 57.3%
o Low Priority: 23%
o Should Not Be a Priority: 18%
• Cultural Arts/Community Space:
o High/Medium Priority: 38.3%
o Low Priority: 28%
o Should Not Be a Priority: 31%
• Multi-family Residential:
o High/Medium Priority: 26.6%
o Low Priority: 22%
o Should Not Be a Priority: 48%
• Hotel:
o High/Medium Priority: 19.3%
o Low Priority: 40%
o Should Not Be a Priority: 39%
• Social Club: 13.1%
o High/Medium Priority: 13.1%
o Low Priority: 20%
o Should Not Be a Priority: 56%
• Visitor Center:
o High/Medium Priority: 12.3%
o Low Priority: 40%
o Should Not Be a Priority: 45%
Due to the format of this phone survey, the mixed-use development option was not presented to respondents because they would be unable to provide input on what mix of uses they would desire. While this survey was not originally identified as part of the public engagement program, it does provide a source of statistically valid data early in the process for the City Council to consider alongside the other feedback collected. (Other outreach activities offered participants the opportunity to communicate their preferred mix of uses.)
The overall survey results were presented at the December 2, 2025, regular City Council meeting. A copy of the complete Community Opinion Survey is included with this report as Attachment 3. Responses related to the Project Pulse question can be found starting on Page 32 of the survey.
Hometown Fair Booth
On October 4 and October 5, 2025, City staff hosted a booth at the annual Manhattan Beach Hometown Fair to collect community input on the list of redevelopment options the City Council refined during the August 26, 2025, study session. Participants had the opportunity to support as many or as few of the redevelopment options for each property as they liked by placing a sticker under each option for one or both properties. Alternatively, they could communicate their support for an option by writing specific ideas or considerations on a post-it note. Each sticker or post-it note was treated as one vote. Participants could also suggest alternative options for consideration.
The participants at the Hometown Fair voted for the current redevelopment options with a parking structure being the most popular option for Parking Lot 3, followed by open space/park and mixed-use development. For 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, open space/park was the most popular option, followed by cultural arts/community space and a parking structure. For both properties, social club and visitor center were the two least popular options.
The complete list of results from the Hometown Fair is included with this staff report as Attachment 4.
Farmer’s Market Booth
In order to collect additional community input and continue to spread awareness of Project Pulse, City staff hosted a booth at the Farmer’s Market on multiple dates this fall and early winter. Staff conducted the same poster activity from the Hometown Fair for the entire duration of the market (11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) on October 21st, November 4th, and December 2nd, 9th, and 16th.
Overall, the cultural arts/Community space, mixed-use development, and open space/park options were the three most popular for both properties. Parking structure and commercial development were the next most popular options for both properties, with more participants preferring a parking structure at Parking Lot 3 than at 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard. The least popular options across both properties were multi-family residential, hotel, social club, and visitor center.
The complete list of results from the Farmer’s Market are included with this staff report as Attachment 4.
Community Partner Meetings
Downtown Business and Professional Association
On November 13, 2025, City staff attend the Downtown Business and Professional Association’s (DBPA) monthly meeting to collect input from their members. There were 18 members present who provided written feedback to City staff. As with the booth activity, they were able to express their support for as many or as few of the current redevelopment options as they liked.
For Parking Lot 3, the participating members identified a parking structure as the most supported option, with a mixed-use development being the second-most supported. For 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, they identified mixed-use development as the most supported option, with a parking structure being the second-most supported. Commercial development, social club, and visitor center received no support from the participants as an option for Parking Lot 3, and multi-family residential and social club received no support as an option for 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard.
The complete list of results from the DBPA meeting are included with this staff report as Attachment 4.
Chamber of Commerce and North Manhattan Beach
On December 10, 2025, City staff attended the Chamber of Commerce and North Manhattan Beach’s virtual joint monthly meeting. Due to limited time available at the meeting, staff provided a brief overview and timeline for Project Pulse and described the current list of redevelopment options being considered but was not able to obtain feedback from the attendees in the same manner as at the DBPA meeting.
The Chamber of Commerce recorded the presentation, and offered to distribute the video link, along with the Project Pulse website link and City staff’s contact information to their membership. Additionally, staff informed the meeting attendees that there are upcoming opportunities to continue to engage in the Project Pulse process through July 2026 and encouraged the members to reach out with any feedback on the redevelopment options, additional considerations, and/or questions.
Focus Groups
Downtown Businesses and Commercial Property Owners
On December 3, 2025, City staff held a dedicated focus group at the Joslyn Center to obtain input from downtown businesses and commercial property owners. The meeting was scheduled during daytime hours based on prior preference expressed by business owners, however only one stakeholder attended. The stakeholder expressed the following preferred uses for each site:
• Parking Lot 3
o Subterranean parking structure
o Mixed-use development above a subterranean parking structure
§ Retail, office, and community-oriented public/open space
• 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard
o Surface parking lot and open space/park
o Office may potentially work
Residents
On the evening of December 9, 2025, City staff held a dedicated focus group at the Joslyn Center for residents. There were 16 members of the public in attendance.
After a short presentation and group discussion, the residents voted for the current redevelopment options. For Parking Lot 3, the most popular option was a parking structure, followed by open space/park, commercial development, mixed-use development, and cultural arts/community space, all of which received a similar number of votes. For 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, cultural arts/community space was the most popular, followed closely by open space/park and mixed/use development. Little to no support was provided for a social club, visitor center, or hotel at either property.
The complete list of results from the resident focus group is included with this staff report as Attachment 4.
Summary of Overall Results
Across the public engagement activities where participants had the opportunity to vote for specific uses for each property, the overall results are broken down as follows:
• Parking Lot 3
o Parking Structure (160 votes)
o Open Space/Park (131 votes)
o Mixed-Use Development (104 votes)
o Cultural Arts/Community Space (76 votes)
o Multi-Family Residential (31 votes)
o Commercial Development (25 votes)
o Hotel (22 votes)
o Social Club (6 votes)
o Visitor Center (6 votes)
• 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard
o Open Space/Park (172 votes)
o Mixed-Use Development (140 votes)
o Cultural Arts/Community Space (76 votes)
o Commercial Development (60 votes)
o Parking Structure (50 votes)
o Multi-Family Residential (24 votes)
o Hotel (22 votes)
o Visitor Center (8 votes)
o Social Club (4 votes)
For Parking Lot 3, the most popular option was a parking structure, with open space/park being the second most popular, and mixed-use development being the third. For 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, open space/park was the most popular option, with mixed-use development being the second, and cultural arts/community space being the third most popular. The least popular options for both properties were hotel, social club, and visitor center.
When participants chose to suggest their preferred combination of uses for a mixed-use development at either property, they suggested the following concepts:
Parking Lot 3:
• Commercial and multi-family residential
• Commercial development with parking
• Cultural arts/community space with visitor center
• Hotel and parking
• Office and parking
• Multi-family residential with rooftop public park
• Parking structure with green roof/park on top
• Subterranean parking with a park above-ground
400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard:
• Commercial and multi-family residential above
• Cultural arts/community space and parking
• Cultural arts/community space with visitor center
• Commercial development with open space/park
• Commercial development (small businesses/locally-owned restaurants)
• Live/work spaces
• Multi-family residential with rooftop public park
• Office and open space
• Open space on top of mixed-use development (community-centered)
• Subterranean parking with a park above-ground
• Subterranean parking with a community space above-ground
If the concept of a mixed-use development remains on the list of potential options, then the precise combination of uses will be further refined over the coming months.
Alternative Redevelopment Options Suggested
For all engagement activities except for the Community Opinion Survey and the Chamber of Commerce/North Manhattan Beach meeting, community members had the opportunity to suggest alternative redevelopment options for consideration. Below is a list of the suggested alternative redevelopment options received during the above engagement activities for each property (in alphabetical order):
Parking Lot 3:
• Aviary
• Dog park that generates revenue: coffee shop during the day, bar at night
• Local trolley pick-up/drop off location
400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard:
• Animal shelter
• Getty Villa-style amphitheater
• Local for-rent golf-cart depot, similar to Catalina Island
• Local trolley pick-up/drop off location
• Free recreation center
• Public restroom
• Public transit center
• Resident permit parking
• Visitor center within retail concept (i.e., coffee house)
Either Property:
• Attendant/stacked parking
• Dog daycare that charges hourly while people shop/eat
• Dog park: one that generates revenue, with a coffee shop during the day and bar at night
• Employee parking for downtown businesses
If the City Council would like to include any of the suggested alternative options on the list for either property, staff recommends that the alternative(s) replace current options rather than expanding the list of options in order to continue making timely forward progress on Project Pulse.
Additional Public Comments Received
Since the August 2025 study session, the City has received several public comments through email, in addition to the input provided through the activities outlined in the public engagement program. City staff has compiled these public comments and attached them to this staff report as Attachment 5.
Redevelopment Options for Continued Consideration
Now that the initial outreach phase is complete, the list of redevelopment options under consideration for each property needs to be reduced. By the time the City hosts design charettes for each property in the late spring, the list of redevelopment options should be no more than two for each property. It is anticipated that staff will return to the City Council in the spring to present results of additional public outreach and request that the list of redevelopment options be further reduced based on those results. A lower number of options for each site will allow for more focused staff and consultant work moving forward and ultimately lead to more timely completion of the project.
CONCLUSION:
To remain on-schedule to bring a preliminary design package to the City Council by August 2026, it is important for the City Council to reduce the number of redevelopment options still under consideration for each property. Staff will move forward with the design phase and additional public engagement based on the remaining options.
As such, staff is requesting that the City Council discuss the community input received to-date and refine and reduce the list of redevelopment options that should remain under consideration for each property. A reduced list should be identified separately for each property such that the options under consideration moving forward may differ between Parking Lot 3 and 400 Manhattan Beach Boulevard.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
For one week prior to the Manhattan Beach Hometown Fair, the Project Pulse webpage included an announcement that there would be a booth for community members to share their input on the future use of both properties. After the Hometown Fair, the webpage was updated to announce the October, November, and December dates for the Farmer’s Market booth, which offered a similar opportunity to provide input.
For the focus groups, City staff posted an interest form on the Project Pulse webpage prior to the Hometown Fair and accepted submissions through the end of October. In addition to informing participants at the Hometown Fair and Farmer’s Market booths of the focus group opportunity, staff also sent an email to interested parties that previously signed up for Project Pulse emails and mailed letters to residential and commercial property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of each property. Prior to the focus groups, the attendees provided their associated Manhattan Beach address, which staff used to confirm their eligibility to participate in the focus groups.
City staff printed postcards with information about Project Pulse, which included a QR code and the website address, that were available at the Hometown Fair booth, Farmer’s Market booth, and continue to be available at the public Planning counter at City Hall to increase awareness of this work effort.
A courtesy notice for the January 20, 2026, meeting was published in the Beach Reporter and emailed to interested parties (including the Chamber of Commerce and the DBPA) on January 8, 2025. On January 12, 2025, postcards were mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of both sites. Additionally, staff utilized the City’s social media platforms during the weeks of January 11, 2025, and January 18, 2025, to publicize this meeting.
Subject to City Council direction, staff will proceed with the additional public outreach and engagement planned for next phase of the public engagement program, as detailed in the August 26, 2025, City Council staff report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Discussing the matter and receiving direction from City Council is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; therefore, the activity is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section
15060(c)(3). While the goal of this discussion is to make progress towards developing a concept for both properties, future redevelopment project(s) that the City Council identifies for each property may be subject to CEQA and will be analyzed at that time.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and determined that no additional legal analysis is necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. August 26, 2025 - City Council Staff Report (Web-Link Provided)
3. 2025 Community Opinion Survey Final Report
4. Fall 2025 Community Outreach Results
5. Additional Public Comments Received
6. PowerPoint Presentation