The Malibu City Council on Monday rejected plans to tunnel pedestrians under Pacific Coast Highway near Malibu Seafood and directed staff instead to pursue a full traffic signal and crosswalk at street level.
On a unanimous voice vote, the council told staff to ask the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for approval to use the project's Measure M funding for a study of a signalized, at-grade pedestrian crossing. The study could include flashing "signal ahead" warnings for drivers coming downhill and a center median barrier to stop people from crossing elsewhere.
"We're never going to be in support of spending $22 million for what's going to be a blocked underpass," Council member Doug Stewart said. "It's on the beach, and it's going to get full of sand and water."
Staff had asked the council to approve a $260,000 cooperative agreement with the California Department of Transportation, or Caltrans, to oversee a project initiation document, the first formal phase of the work. That phase, expected to take 10 to 12 months, would have evaluated three options identified in a 2025 feasibility study by MNS Engineers Inc.
A standalone concrete tunnel under the highway was estimated at $10.9 million. A new road bridge over Corral Creek with a pedestrian passage beneath it was estimated at $22.8 million. A street-level crossing with a pedestrian-activated beacon or other signal was estimated at $2.36 million.
The engineers' scoring matrix ranked the street-level crossing first, with 90 of 100 points. The tunnel options scored highest on safety but lost points for cost and complexity.
Pedestrians at the site cross four lanes of 50 mph traffic to reach Dan Blocker County Beach, Malibu Seafood, the Malibu RV Park and the Sara Wan Trailhead. The 3-mile stretch between Latigo Canyon Road and Malibu Canyon Road has only three marked crossings, project manager Nathaniel McLean told the council. The nearest, at Corral Canyon Road, is more than a half-mile away.
State crash records show 126 crashes involving pedestrians across Malibu from January 2014 through June 2025, in which 28 people were killed.
"It's now 11 years since this was brought up, and we're lucky nobody's been killed there," Stewart said.
Council member Haylynn Conrad proposed a traffic light with a crosswalk instead.
"I personally don't like the overpass idea. I don't like the underpass idea," Conrad said. She said underpasses are known to clog with sand. Stewart recalled being told that the underpass at Zuma Beach fills with sand as soon as the sand washes back in.
Mayor Bruce Silverstein said an underpass would be the safest way across and would not block views, but he doubted it could stay dry. He also said he was concerned that anything short of a full traffic light would be less safe.
"If it's only lit every now and then, people won't be used to stopping, and someone's going to get hit by being lulled into a false sense of safety," Silverstein said.
Mayor Pro Tem Steve Uhring pressed for an independent safety review rather than relying on Caltrans alone. "Public safety is our most important job. Period," he said.
Council member Marianne Riggins said people already cross the road there, including small children, and stand on the median. "I can't imagine that putting in a traffic signal with a pedestrian crosswalk is going to make it more dangerous," she said.
The undercrossing has a long history. A 2015 PCH safety study recommended a pedestrian undercrossing at the site. In 2019, Caltrans proposed a pedestrian hybrid beacon there, but residents, city commissioners and elected officials pushed for an undercrossing instead. Caltrans dropped the beacon project in 2022, and in February 2024 the council authorized a funding agreement for $2.25 million in Measure M money for the undercrossing.
A 2019 Caltrans review also recommended against routing pedestrians through the creek channel under the existing bridge. The site lies in a federally designated 100-year floodplain.
The new direction may not be simple to carry out. Tatiana Holden, the city's assistant public works director, said the Metro funding agreement names a specific scope of work and would need to be modified. She said the city would likely still have to analyze other alternatives to justify its choice to Metro.
City Manager Joseph Irvin said the city would have to consult Metro before it could say for certain whether the money could be spent on the signal study alone. Measure M funds from fiscal year 2023-24 were set to lapse June 30, 2026; a proposed amendment would extend that deadline to June 30, 2027.
If Metro refuses the change, Silverstein said, "We'll have another decision to make."
Irvin said the discussion gave staff clear direction. He said future councils and staff "will be grateful that this conversation was had."