So I just mapped out the California section on google maps because it says in the plans that’s going into undeveloped land and about 15 acres of that development is going into a relatively cut off part of Griffith park.While I agree the zoo really needs to focus on improving their current infrastructure before expansion (which is also their main priorities in the vision plan), I'm not sure I really agree with the land use argument. Griffith Park is just over 4,300 acres total. The zoo currently is 133 acres. Very tiny fraction of the park. If you look at the satellite view, the zoo is hardly half the size of its neighbor, the Wilson golf course. Also to my understanding from the master plan, they're not looking to expand into undeveloped areas of Griffith Park, they're actually working on areas adjacent to their current parking lot. I think most of their expansion comes from the expanding parking into that small parking lot on the south-east side, and a little bit there between their parking lot and the freeway off ramps/Zoo Drive.
That red circle shows the inlet hill that takes up most of the space and the large canyon the friends are talking about. Notice how it’s cut off from most of Griffith park because of the already existing zoo and already at the very end of Griffith Parks limits. So as a habitat for many of Griffith parks larger animals well it really isn’t. Also if you look in a better image or go hiking there you’ll notice it’s used as a site fir storing materials. Now look it will have effects on native reptiles birds and bugs but if the zoo does a good job building the area it will get replaced by better kept native Californian plants. Griffith park should have limits of expansion and just because it’s a small amount of land doesn’t mean it’s ok however I think if LA zoo treats it correctly they can generally keep it as a good habitat for small Griffith Park animals.