Another key issue, she said, was a change in Mulholland Drive itself: The new bridge would have created a "T" intersection on the east side of the bridge in place of a gradual curve in the original plan.
Rosen's group, the Brentwood Residents Coalition, complained in a letter that the realigned bridge would "degrade the historic alignment and scenic character of the Mulholland Scenic Parkway."
The letter also hinted at legal action, stating that, because it lacked a new environmental impact report, the alternative plan was "an egregious violation" of state regulations.
At a tense public meeting on Feb. 17, Barbour pitched the new plan to the Design Review Board, a city committee made up of local residents that reviews new construction projects along Mulholland Drive.
Dozens of residents spoke in opposition to the new plan. The board members — three of whom are architects — questioned whether the city was missing an opportunity to create a new civic landmark.
Zev Yaroslavsky, who represents the area on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, supported the alternative plan. But he said Metro could not risk a new lawsuit that would stall the project. So he agreed with the decision to push ahead with the original plan.
"As frustrating as it was to many of us, myself included, Metro made the right decision," said Yaroslavsky, whose staff has been chronicling the debate on his website. "They couldn't jeopardize the length of the project by a year or two."
Laurie Kelson, a member of the Community Advisory Committee, said she was "majorly disappointed" that the alternative plan wasn't adopted.
"We all worked really hard on this, it was a great idea that would have saved millions of taxpayer dollars," she said. "And it's not happening, it's gone."
