Manhattan Beach Planners Reject Height Increase At Former Bank Site In 4-1 Vote

MANHATTAN BEACH, CA — Plans to allow taller buildings at two city-owned downtown properties have been scaled back after the Manhattan Beach Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend preserving the existing height limit at the former U.S. Bank site while allowing additional development flexibility at a nearby parking lot.

The Oct. 28 decision marks a significant change to the city's proposed zoning amendments under Project Pulse, an initiative exploring the redevelopment of the former bank property at 400 Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Parking Lot 3 at 1155 Morningside Drive.

City officials had proposed increasing the maximum building height at both locations from 26 to 30 feet, provided qualifying on-site parking was included. However, following a lengthy public hearing, commissioners concluded that the two properties warranted different approaches because of their surroundings and the potential effects of taller development on neighboring homes. Under the revised recommendation, Parking Lot 3 would remain eligible for a 30-foot height limit when parking requirements are satisfied, while the former bank property would retain its existing 26-foot restriction.

Commissioner Jill Schecter made the motion, which was seconded by Chair Rachel Hackett. Schecter, Hackett, Vice Chair Kristin Sistos and Commissioner Robert Siemak voted in favor, while Commissioner Dina Treyger cast the lone dissenting vote. The decision is a recommendation rather than final approval. The proposed amendments must still be considered by the City Council and, if adopted, undergo review by the California Coastal Commission.

Two Downtown Properties, Different Concerns

Project Pulse was established in spring 2025 as a coordinated effort to explore the future of two prominent downtown properties, both of which have become central to discussions about parking, commercial development and potential new revenue for the city. Parking Lot 3 previously housed a three-story, 145-space parking structure that was demolished in 2024 after structural concerns were identified during a routine inspection. An interim surface lot with 69 parking spaces opened in June 2025 while officials considered longer-term redevelopment options.

The city purchased the former U.S. Bank property on April 15, 2025. Located at the southeast corner of Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Morningside Drive, the site includes the former bank building and surface parking areas. Although both properties are within the downtown commercial district, their surroundings differ considerably.

Parking Lot 3 is bordered primarily by commercial properties, including the Metlox development across Morningside Drive, where certain buildings are already subject to a 30-foot height allowance. The former bank property, by contrast, is near multifamily housing, prompting concerns about the effects of additional height on neighboring residents and views along Manhattan Beach Boulevard.

Those differences had already emerged during an August Planning Commission study session, when commissioners and members of the public expressed generally neutral to favorable views about increasing the height limit at Parking Lot 3 but raised objections to a similar change at the bank property. According to the city's Oct. 28 staff report, the proposed amendments followed an April 21 City Council directive to explore additional building height at both locations.

Questions Over The Need For Taller Buildings

City planners argued that allowing buildings up to 30 feet could improve redevelopment opportunities by accommodating higher ceilings and other features commonly sought by modern commercial tenants. The proposed amendments also would have permitted certain rooftop features to extend beyond the maximum building height, including elevator shafts, stairwell enclosures and screened mechanical equipment by up to 5 feet, and qualifying lighting and guardrails by up to 6 feet.

For buildings exceeding 26 feet at the former bank site, staff proposed additional protections intended to reduce impacts on neighboring properties. Those included a 40-foot rear setback from adjoining residential uses and a 10-foot front setback for taller portions of buildings facing an arterial road. However, commissioners questioned whether the economic advantages of an additional 4 feet had been sufficiently demonstrated, particularly when the city had not settled on a final redevelopment plan for either property.

During the Oct. 28 meeting, Hackett questioned whether a taller building would necessarily generate more revenue than one constructed under the existing height limit, while Sistos raised concerns about changing development standards without a clearer understanding of the commercial benefits.

Other commissioners expressed reservations about establishing new zoning allowances before the city had determined what type of development it wanted at the former bank site. Treyger took a different view, arguing that greater height flexibility could make future redevelopment more commercially attractive.

The disagreement reflected a broader question facing the city: whether to establish more permissive development standards in advance or wait until a specific proposal demonstrates that additional height is necessary.

Residents Raise Concerns About Downtown Character

Public testimony reinforced the distinction between the two sites. Longtime resident Jim Burton questioned the wisdom of treating the properties alike, expressing support for greater height flexibility at Parking Lot 3 while opposing the same allowance at the former bank site.

Burton and other speakers raised concerns about the potential effects of taller buildings on neighboring homes, including views and the scale of development along Manhattan Beach Boulevard. Kelly Stroman, executive director of Downtown Manhattan Beach, also questioned whether larger commercial buildings would be consistent with the character of the downtown area.

Other speakers focused on parking, loading areas, building setbacks and the potential consequences of allowing greater development intensity before specific projects had been selected. However, the hearing also included support for establishing clearer development standards early in the process. One developer argued that determining allowable heights in advance could provide greater certainty for prospective private-sector partners and help the city move redevelopment forward.

The competing views left commissioners weighing the potential financial advantages of greater flexibility against concerns about the long-term effects of taller buildings on downtown Manhattan Beach.

Financial Pressures And A Lengthy Approval Process

The debate comes as city officials explore ways to generate revenue from their downtown properties while navigating a redevelopment process that could take several years. At a September City Council meeting, officials directed staff to examine additional development concepts for the former bank property, including a potentially larger building with less on-site parking.

The council also expressed interest in pursuing a public-private partnership, under which the city would work with a private developer on the property's future. Staff told commissioners that zoning amendments affecting the city's coastal area would require California Coastal Commission certification, a process that could take well over a year.

Officials also pointed to financial pressures associated with the former bank property, including a scheduled 2028 interest-rate reset on the city's financing that could increase debt-service costs. Those considerations have added urgency to the redevelopment effort, although commissioners questioned whether the prospect of higher financing costs justified changing the existing height restrictions before a project had been selected.

What Happens Next?

Following an extended discussion, commissioners took a recess while the city attorney prepared revisions to the proposed resolution. The final recommendation removed 400 Manhattan Beach Blvd. from the zoning amendments entirely, leaving its existing 26-foot height limit unchanged.

For Parking Lot 3, commissioners supported creating a separate zoning designation allowing buildings up to 30 feet when qualifying on-site parking is provided. Without that parking, the 26-foot limit would continue to apply. The revised proposal also retains allowances for certain rooftop features at Parking Lot 3, while removing the additional front and rear setback provisions that had been drafted primarily to address concerns about taller construction at the former bank site.

The distinction is important: commissioners did not reject redevelopment of the former bank property, nor did they approve a specific project for Parking Lot 3. Instead, they recommended different development standards for the two sites while the city continues exploring their future uses. The original staff report tentatively identified Nov. 17 for City Council consideration of the amendments, although the revisions made during the hearing could affect that timetable.

Any changes to the Local Coastal Program approved by the council would still require Coastal Commission certification before taking effect. For now, the commission has drawn a clear line between the two properties: supporting greater height flexibility at the former parking garage site while recommending that the former bank property remain subject to the same 26-foot limit that applies across much of downtown Manhattan Beach.