NCSA representatives voted November 14, 2021 to support the LA Zoo project alternative 1 and to oppose both the original proposed project and alternative 2. See our public comment here.

UPDATE September 22, 2023: City Council supported the LA Zoo's proposal. Two organizations have filed suit. You can read their press release here.

UPDATE June 28, 2023:

The LA Zoo has come back with their proposal, here. (You can find it in Council File 21-0828.) It is still Alternative 1.5, which we and several other groups opposed last fall. This will be heard in the Neighborhoods and Community Enrichment Committee THIS EVENING at 5 pm, in-person. The agenda is here

We are told this is the last hurdle before Alternative 1 goes to the full city council.

This is what the Sierra Club had to say.

UPDATE September 29, 2022:

The LA Zoo came back in July with alternative 1.5. You can learn more at

And check out what Friends of Griffith Park have to say:

Several representatives of both Friends of Griffith Park and the LA Zoo joined the advocacy committee for a special meeting to discuss the proposal, and several of us took a tour of the zoo. Ultimately, upon the recommendation of the advocacy committee, we voted to support the following statement (which you can also see here):

The Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance (NCSA) has voted to oppose the Los Angeles Zoo’s expansion project Alternative 1.5 and to remain in support of Alternative 1. 

We thank the Mayor’s Office for bringing the NCSA into this conversation and the Los Angeles Zoo for engaging with us so deeply. We also applaud the Zoo for working to ensure best practices for animal care and for listening to community feedback and proposing a scaled-down design (Alternative 1.5) that prioritizes native plants and habitats in new exhibits and that is more in keeping with the character of Griffith Park than the original proposed project, which we did not support.

We support the mission of the zoo, which is to lead the way in saving wildlife and connecting Angelenos to the natural world by providing exemplary animal care, delivering distinctive and diverse learning opportunities, and creating unforgettable experiences. We think some of the changes proposed in Alternative 1.5,  such as elimination of habitat for sensitive native species (see the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 2021 letter) and commercialization of a ridgeline, would not further the zoo’s mission as much as other less disruptive options that would do more to support Griffith Park’s existing ecosystem and biodiversity while allowing us to enjoy it. We are concerned that the environmental costs of some of the proposed changes would outweigh any benefits and would not necessarily enhance people’s experience of nature. 

You can still weigh in!

The deadline for the CEQA process has passed, but you can still email [email protected] and submit a public comment to Council File 21-0828.


The NCSA supports the LA Zoo project alternative 1 (the Reduced Project Alternative) and oppose both the original proposed project and alternative 2 (the Multi-modal Transportation Alternative) as described in the environmental impact report (EIR) (in Council File 21-0828). While the LA Zoo’s general manager wrote that the vision for the zoo’s “proposed infrastructure and animal facility improvements prioritize animal welfare, conservation, sustainability, operational excellence and being a community resource,” we disagree, and we do think the improvements should prioritize animal welfare, conservation, and sustainability, in addition to biodiversity. Removing native habitat at the scale proposed in the project (21 acres) does not strike us as consistent with the stated vision, and, if given the choice between the proposed project and alternatives 1 and 2, we would much prefer alternative 1, which is identified in the EIR as the "environmentally superior alternative."

Additional sources: (Community Forest Advisory Committee letter)

NCSA representatives voted November 14, 2021 to support the LA Zoo project alternative 1 and to oppose both the original proposed project and alternative 2. See our public comment here.


Updated September 22, 2023