Groups Sue LA Over Zoo Expansion Project

A group of organizations have filed a lawsuit against L.A. alleging the city council violated state environmental regulations when it certified an environmental impact report and approved an expansion plan.

The lawsuit, filed by the Friends of Griffith Park, a body of environmentalists and preservationists, and the Griffith J. Griffith Charitable Trust, alleges that the L.A. City Council violated the California Environmental Quality Act and that the plan “will destroy 16 acres of Griffith Park’s native California chaparral habitat in order to develop the California Planning Area.”

It also states that while some efforts have been made for improved animal habitat and conservancy, the plan is mostly centered on increasing the L.A. Zoo’s use as an entertainment and events venue.

The EIR, according to the lawsuit, also fails to mention how the development will address the environmental effects of excavating a canyon, removing existing vegetation, and does not contain key documentation requested by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Friends of Griffith Park have asked the court to rescind approvals to the zoo's vision plan.

Marian Dodge, a former president of Friends of Griffith Park, said the area proposed for “Condor Canyon” within the California Planning Area — a section of the zoo where visitors can learn about the California condor and the conservation efforts — is on a ridgeline covered with chaparral.

“It's an important ridgeline because it's the very eastern end of the Santa Monica Mountains. A lot of people don't realize that the Santa Monica Mountains go all the way to Griffith Park and it's extremely visible,” she said. “That would be a huge impact, digging that trench through the middle of this ridge to get from one part of the mountain around to the backside of the mountain. The second thing that they want to build in that area is a California visitor center that would be placed on the top of that ridge line.”

The 18,000-square-foot proposed building, she said, would change the view and the habitat.

“It would be visible from all the people living in Atwater Village or in Eagle Rock. It would have events there at night, so they'd be bringing a lot more people,” she said. “So, that's why we filed the lawsuit. We want them to step back.”

The city’s EIR states that they would explore a tunnel instead of a canyon to avoid blasting during construction.

“This feature (Condor Canyon area) would improve not only the visitor experience, but also visitor safety and operational excellence,” the EIR states.

But the environmental impact of a tunnel has not been outlined in the EIR.

“We don't know what impact that (tunnel) might have on the habitat,” Dodge said. “The zoo also offered to reduce the size of the California Visitor Center and place it lower on the hill, but again, we have no details whatsoever on that. It was something that was just mentioned, it was not in the EIR.”

The EIR does state that the zoo is committed to “making the California visitor center smaller in scale and less obtrusive on the hillside and ridgeline and not in the style of a Yosemite lodge.”

However, no details are given about what that would entail.

On the zoo’s website, the current iteration of the vision plan — named Alternative 1.5: The California Focused Conservation Alternative — is deemed as an “environmentally superior update to the plan.”

In this new iteration, spaces dedicated to animals will increase by 162%, and 95% of trees will be protected with zero expansion into Griffith Park.

A representative Los Angeles Zoo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.