"Malibu Stirred by Freeway Reports"
Even while the issues raised by the various proposals for
routing the Malibu Freeway between Malibu Canyon and the county line remain
unsolved, a new set of proposals, this time covering the gap between Santa
Monica and Malibu Beach, seems likely to intensify the bitter feeling between
the State Highway Division and residents of Malibu.
Entitled “Route 60 Freeway Reconnaissance Study in the Santa
Monica Bay Area,” and subtitled “An Investigation of the Feasibility of a Joint
Highway-Recreational Facility Between the City of Santa Monica and the
Community of Malibu Beach,” a study just released by the state engineers
proposes three alternative routes, all of them highly controversial.
The most expensive of the three plans, but the one most
likely to gain acceptance among citizens of Malibu, is a proposal that the
freeway between Santa Monica and Malibu Beach run along “either a continuous bridge
or a landfill located between 1,000 feet and one-half mile offshore.” This
would have the effect of creating a lagoon- between the natural shoreline and
the causeway which could be used as a yachting harbor and for other
recreational purposes. Where the offshore freeway ran along a fill a new beach
would be created on the ocean side which would be available to fill the needs
of the thousands of bathers who have been trying to crowd themselves into the
few natural beaches now left unfenced along Pacific Coast Highway.
The report notes that construction costs of the offshore
freeway would be considerably higher than any of the land routes would involve,
but this would be partly compensated by an absence of right-of-way costs.
Next most costly would be an inland route by which the
freeway would lie on tops of the bluffs and the mountainsides overlooking the
ocean. Construction costs would be high but its main disadvantage “is that it
would require extensive right-of-way in a well- developed residential area
which would result In exceptionally high right-of-way costs.” Large cuts and
fills would be required but beach residences and commercial property along
Pacific Coast Highway could be bypassed.
The third proposal, termed the “onshore route,” is one never
before made publicly. Under this plan, the freeway would run along state-owned
lands bordering the mean high-tide line. Since this would destroy the present
beaches, new ones, would be created on the sea side of the freeway and the new eight-lane
freeway on the other with all access to the ocean cut off. The report suggests
that “this location more nearly, satisfies requirements of the proposed ‘Pacific
International Scenic Drive’ of which the new freeway will probably be an integral
part.” Construction costs would not be excessive and there would be little in
the way of right-of-way costs.
Publication of the reconnaissance study brought an Immediate
and violent reaction from the Malibu Community Organizations Freeway committee,
formed to fight any proposed freeway routes which they believe would cut up
their community in such a way as to destroy its essential character.
According to A. F. Brewer, president of the committee, his
group will give its “unqualified approval’’ to the offshore route but must
oppose the other two suggestions. The “onshore” route, in particular, he
characterized as “utterly reprehensible” and an attempt by the state to seize without
compensation some millions of dollars’ worth of beach property. Owners of beach
houses on Pacific Coast Highway would still have their buildings but they would
be rendered virtually valueless.
He protested that the
report would raise a public storm that would make the bitter controversy over
freeway routes west of Malibu Canyon “look like nothing.”
