Candidate Conversations: Redevelopment in Downtown Manhattan Beach
Oct 25, 2026 08:22PM ● By MB News Staff
(One proposed design; image via city of Manhattan Beach)
In this week's Candidate Conversations, MB News asks Manhattan Beach City Council candidates about development options in downtown Manhattan Beach.
MB News gave the candidates the following prompt:
The city surprised many recently by purchasing a downtown property, the site of a former bank building at the corner of Morningside Drive and Manhattan Beach Blvd., next to the Vons market.
It's also necessary for the city to redevelop the former "Lot 3" that serves downtown, but lost a great number of parking spaces after the multi-level parking lot was deemed seismically unsafe.
- What is your view of the city's decision to purchase the bank property when it became available?
- With the Lot 3 site serving only as ground-level parking now and for the foreseeable future, is the city making the right decision to wait for redevelopment, instead of simply building parking to replace Lot 3?
- Are you familiar with the redevelopment options presented to date for each site? Do you have any favorites, or any options of which you disapprove?
- How do you see the redevelopment proposals in the context of a vision for the future of downtown Manhattan Beach?
JOSEPH UNGOCO
I have been very vocal about how I chose to move to MB because it was walkable and bikeable. I would like to see a multimodal transport hub on the Lot 3 site which includes state of the art bike racks for regular and e-bikes, designated parking for Low Speed Vehicles like golf carts, enforced EV parking/charging, and more regular parking than we had before. I should note that I do not think that the City should provide free charging for e-bikes or LSVs.
Regarding the 400 MBB site, I agree that it was a once in a generation (or two) opportunity to acquire additional property downtown. I firmly believe that the space should be kept flexible.with an eye toward the city's needs for space in the mid- to long-term. We should not develop it as car parking - unless we have long term plans to keep and possibly add parking to the site. I could be convinced of the need for some parking as long as it is balanced with green and/or public space.
The main priority should be to assess the City's meeting and office space needs as the Scout House comes down and for when eventually, the Joslyn Center and ultimately, our City Hall, need to come down and be rebuilt. We will need space to move programming, offices and meeting spaces as these projects get underway. That said, we need people on our City Council who can take a long range view of their stewardship of City resources as well as have the humility to step aside and let future leaders finish the job. I hope to be that councilmember who subscribes to the idea of planting seeds of trees under whose shade I will never sit rather than aspiring to be some forever councilmember fossilizing in office.
MARK BURTON
1. I am concerned when our City tries to become a Downtown “developer”. If the City wants to shape what is developed in Downtown, then zoning if how they should do it.
2. I am also concerned about the financing with the City using $13 Million General Funds for the purchase, then reimbursing the General Fund by issuing $15.8 in tax-exempt Certificates of Participation that mature on July 1, 2028, with the City facing a strict financial timeline to construct a use that maintains the tax-exempt status.
3. It appears that this decision may have been rash, when you consider the financing. However, if it was possible to also develop 400 MBB with the Vons site, then that would make sense. Of course, the City should not be the developer, so maybe a joint public-private partnership might work with the private company being the developer and the City providing
the land.
With the Lot 3 site serving only as ground-level parking now and for the foreseeable future, is the city making the right decision to wait for redevelopment, instead of simply building parking to replace Lot 3?
1. I commend the City for acting expeditiously to keep us safe by condemning and demolishing the prior unsafe parking lot.
2. Why is the City waiting to develop a new Parking Lot 3 with two underground levels and two above ground levels. Downtown MB has an urgent need for more parking now, not later. Stop dawdling.
Are you familiar with the redevelopment options presented to date for each site? Do you have any favorites, or any options of which you disapprove?
1. Yes, I am familiar with Project Pulse and the seemingly disjointed process. It is clear to me that the process is flawed with limited input from stakeholders such as the MB Chamber and the Downtown Business and Professional Association.
2. As far as option for Parking Lot 3, I think building a new parking facility with two levels of underground parking and two levels of above ground parking is the only option. The City should separate this project from Project Pulse process and start building asap.
3. As far as 400 MBB, there was one option for a small “open space” park, just a block or two from the greatest “open space” in our City…the Strand and the Beach! It is obvious to me that a park is not needed at that location and, further, only the homeless would use such a park. To me, 400 MBB needs to be developed in conjunction with the Vons property with a public/private partnership with the City providing some land and the private acting as the developer.
How do you see the redevelopment proposals in the context of a vision for the future of downtown Manhattan Beach?
1. If you develop 400 MBB in conjunction with the Vons property, then you could develop a vision that may enhance our Downtown Manhattan Beach. I have always believed that our quaint Downtown MB is our City’s “Crown Jewel”. So far, I haven’t seen any proposal for both properties that would be consistent with our “Crown Jewel”.
AMY HOWORTH
What is your view of the city's decision to purchase the bank property when it became available?
The City is now better positioned to ensure that any future development of this site would respect and maintain the unique essence that defines Manhattan Beach. We can control the height, the use, the look. We owe thanks to the City Manager for bringing this opportunity to the City Council's attention. Once notified, staff moved quickly to evaluate the site, provide crucial analysis, and initiate negotiations.
With the Lot 3 site serving only as ground-level parking now and for the foreseeable future, is the city making the right decision to wait for redevelopment, instead of simply building parking to replace Lot 3?
Yes, I believe waiting is the right decision, though I understand the frustration of seeing a surface lot in the middle of downtown. Here’s why. A parking structure is a 50-year decision. The old Lot 3 stood from 1971 until 2024. Whatever we build next will shape downtown for decades, so it’s worth getting right. When Lot 3 came down, the city acquired the former U.S. Bank site right next door. Planning the two sites together gives us choices a stand-alone garage wouldn’t: a better-designed parking structure, public space, room for local businesses, and the chance to include neighboring properties if they become available. Building a replacement garage right away would have closed off those options. Waiting also hasn’t meant losing parking. Between the temporary surface lot, restriped downtown streets, and temporary parking at the bank site, the city has replaced more spaces than the old structure had.
While time-consuming, robust public engagement was necessary. The Council must now make well-calibrated decisions that are financially sound, serve our residents, and fit the appropriate scale for our community. We have gained valuable clarity since 2024. Replacing Lot 3 dedicated strictly to parking makes clear sense today, though had I not known about the acquisition of the U.S. Bank site, I might have supported a mixed-use concept there.
Are you familiar with the redevelopment options presented to date for each site? Do you have any favorites, or any options of which you disapprove?
Yes, I’m very familiar as we spent hours discussing at our September 15th meeting! At that meeting, we reviewed rough design charettes based on several rounds of community input as well as advice from an economic development perspective. We decided at that meeting to decouple the two projects and to not pursue an underground connection between Lot 3 and the Metlox parking garage due to the engineering challenges and added cost. We also unanimously voted to pursue a public-private partnership to develop the US Bank site, akin to the Metlox agreement.
How do you see the redevelopment proposals in the context of a vision for the future of downtown Manhattan Beach?
My vision balances practical infrastructure with community-minded development. Dedicating Lot 3 to structured parking addresses an essential, long-term civic need, while keeping options open for contiguous properties. Meanwhile, redeveloping the U.S. Bank site—potentially through a public-private partnership that incorporates up to three stories of workforce housing—achieves a scale that honors our village character while meeting vital housing and economic needs.
Again, in 2024, the council deemed the Lot 3 parking structure “unsafe” and shut it down immediately. I had urged the new council to replace the 145 parking spaces lost as soon as possible as these spaces were critical to businesses and visitors.
Editor's Note: For reference, here are the previous candidate questions and answers:
Utility Undergrounding:
https://www.thembnews.com/2026/10/12/587095/candidate-conversations-utility-undergrounding
Manhattan Beach City Budget:
https://www.thembnews.com/2026/10/05/586458/candidate-conversations-manhattan-beach-city-budget
License Plate Readers & Speed Cameras:
https://www.thembnews.com/2026/09/28/585342/candidate-conversations-license-plate-readers-speed-came...
What About East Manhattan Beach?:
https://www.thembnews.com/2026/09/21/584506/candidate-conversations-what-about-east-manhattan-beach-
Instead of spending money to demolish the bank, we voted to keep the former bank site as paid parking for now while exploring whether a partnership with the Vons owners is possible. This is a critical piece of the puzzle. We asked staff to come back with an update due December 1.
I wasn't in love with the concept provided; I don’t think matching the design of Metlox should be the goal. The concept also showed a very large retail space on the first floor and I'm not in favor of that as it aligns poorly with our downtown design guidelines. Nor was I sold on second-floor office spaces, given current vacancies in the area.
The key is identifying revenue-generating uses that offset costs and justify the acquisition. n my perfect world, the site would feature a inexpensive restaurant, community art space with working studios, galleries, and performance venues, complemented by upper-floor workforce housing for teachers, healthcare workers, and city employees. Sadly, I don’t think that pencils out unless we get some private investment for a dedicated art space. And I’m too pragmatic to push for something that isn’t financially feasible. A girl can dream, though!
How do you see the redevelopment proposals in the context of a vision for the future of downtown Manhattan Beach?
These two parcels represent a generational opportunity to shape the future of downtown Manhattan Beach. Through extensive community engagement in Project Pulse, it became clear that whatever we build here will redefine the character and functionality of our downtown core for decades to come.
RICHARD MONTGOMERY
As a councilmember in 2024, the then possible acquisition of 400 Manhattan Beach Blvd (400 MBB) was discussed after learning that a developer intended to purchase the property and the adjacent “Von’s property”. The developer reportedly had plans to build a condominium / apartment project utilizing the Density Bonus law and including “low-income units”. The project would have been “approved ministerially” without any chance for city opposition. The acquisition by the city (completed in 2025) was a “preemptive action” in order to protect that parcel along with the possibility of acquiring the Vons property at a later date. My opinion remains that the decision to acquire 400 MBB as a proactive measure was the correct decision then and even more so today.
Again, in 2024, the council deemed the Lot 3 parking structure “unsafe” and shut it down immediately. I had urged the new council to replace the 145 parking spaces lost as soon as possible as these spaces were critical to businesses and visitors.
I see two options. Option 1 – Advertise immediately with a RFQ (Request for Qualifications) inviting “private partners” to develop the Lot 3 parcel with a suitable above ground development. The proposed development MUST conform to the surrounding neighborhood; be income producing and MUST REPLACE at a minimum the 145 parking spaces lost. The RFQ should close in 90 days.
Option 2 – if no “private partners” are found in the 90-day RFQ time period, or while inside the 90-day RFQ Period, the city moves ahead and solicits design bids to replace the LOT 3 parking garage to include the possibility of both above ground and underground designs. After two years of gathering community input, every day of indecision
and delay, negatively affects our downtown businesses, residents and visitors searching for parking. In addition, the cost of construction increases. No more delays! No more design consultant contracts!
Yes, I attend the Project Pulse Public Engagement Forum that allowed everyone the opportunity to select a preferred end use. The design options for Lot 3 ranged from a three-story parking garage; a two-story hotel development; and a first-floor retail development. All uses included parking above ground and two levels underground to accommodate the increased demand. My comments related to the redevelopment of LOT 3 are described in a previous paragraph. Again, time is of the essence and we need to get started on our options.
and delay, negatively affects our downtown businesses, residents and visitors searching for parking. In addition, the cost of construction increases. No more delays! No more design consultant contracts!
Yes, I attend the Project Pulse Public Engagement Forum that allowed everyone the opportunity to select a preferred end use. The design options for Lot 3 ranged from a three-story parking garage; a two-story hotel development; and a first-floor retail development. All uses included parking above ground and two levels underground to accommodate the increased demand. My comments related to the redevelopment of LOT 3 are described in a previous paragraph. Again, time is of the essence and we need to get started on our options.
The design options for 400 MBB included an open Space Park; a two-story mixed-use building; one, two-story apartment building; or to maintain the existing use as overflow permit parking. All uses included surface level or parking underground to accommodate the increased demand (except for the current interim use).
As to the redevelopment of 400 MBB, two key items need to be addressed. First, will the city aggressively pursue the VONS property acquisition? Second, until that determination has been made, no need to spend any more funds on improving the property or requesting design options. I would continue the current use in the interim.
Editor's Note: For reference, here are the previous candidate questions and answers:
Crime and Communications:
https://www.thembnews.com/2026/10/12/587095/candidate-conversations-utility-undergrounding
Manhattan Beach City Budget:
https://www.thembnews.com/2026/10/05/586458/candidate-conversations-manhattan-beach-city-budget
License Plate Readers & Speed Cameras:
https://www.thembnews.com/2026/09/28/585342/candidate-conversations-license-plate-readers-speed-came...
What About East Manhattan Beach?:
https://www.thembnews.com/2026/09/21/584506/candidate-conversations-what-about-east-manhattan-beach-
