 FRONT PAGE Archive Index Feedback |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
| |||||
Phinney Ridge Council Stymies Zoo's Long Range Plans
By Laurel Holliday
Will the animals get lost at the Zoo? Laurel Holliday photo. |
The EIS was supposed to serve as an aid to the Seattle City Council, which would help the group consider the environmental impacts of the Zoo's 2002 LRP before it votes on how much of the plan it wants to see implemented. The council and Gendler filed an appeal with the City Hearing Examiner contending that the EIS did not adequately disclose the environmental impacts of the Zoo's LRP.
In a finding released on July 1, hearing examiner Meredith A. Getches said the EIS "is not an aid to decision-makers. The environmental consequences of changing how the zoo is used, as recommended in the LRP, are not disclosed... This is a fatal flaw to the adequacy of the EIS... The EIS is not adequate."
Kenneth Bounds, director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, says, "We obviously think it is adequate. We explored all of the impacts. We think it's enough for decision-makers to come to a decision."
Bounds says he intends to ask Getches to reconsider her decision.
Cost of the "inadequate" EIS
According to Parks Department spokesperson Dewey Potter, the City of Seattle paid approximately $150,000, and the Woodland Park Zoological Society (WPZS) paid approximately $350,000 for preparation of the 2002 LRP and the accompanying EIS. Various consultants were paid for work on the LRP. Then Shapiro and Associates (a Seattle-based environmental consulting firm) was paid $207,729 for producing the EIS, according to Richard Butler, the project manager.
Fun and games, but most of all--money!
The 2002 LRP is intended to guide the direction of the zoo for the next 20 years. At its core is a different philosophy from that of the 1976 Woodland Park Zoo Long Range Plan, which has defined the zoo's objectives for the last 25 years. According to Getches, "Focus shifted from a zoo as a place to view menageries of animals for entertainment, to an educational institution with habitat-based groupings of plants and animals. This 'landscape immersion' approach, with its ecological and social emphasis, became a model for other zoos and brought Woodland Park Zoo international prominence."
A major focus of the proposed 2002 LRP is on developing amenities, facilities, and recreational opportunities, which are expected to bring higher attendance and greater revenues. Whereas the 1976 Plan allowed "no recreational activities... not related to the zoo experience" and called for the removal of "amusement rides," the 2002 Plan calls for more recreational activities and the installation of a 50 foot diameter pay-per-ride carousel inside a 5,500 - 6,500 square foot building, which includes 1,200 square feet of rental space for children's parties. In addition to the carousel and rental party house, the 2002 plan calls for the building of a year-round day and evening rental Events Center which will hold up to 400 people and have a building footprint of 9,000 square feet.
In addition to the money it would take to build The Carousel and the Events Center, these entertainment venues will take up a considerable chunk of the zoo's very limited acreage. Since it is one of the smallest major zoos in the country, critics of the 2002 plan say Woodland Park Zoo can ill afford to squander its remaining land resources.
Perhaps the single most controversial element of the 2002 LRP is the construction of a two-level Zoo Office Building with a 15,000 square foot footprint to provide "desk space" for approximately 114 staff.
According to the LRP, the Zoo Office is to be built on a site that intrudes onto the Zoo's North Meadow. "It's entirely out of scale and character with Woodland Park," says Irene Wall, Phinney Ridge Community Council president. Wall notes that there is no documentation to support the need for a 40,000-plus square-foot building which includes nine conference rooms, a private gym, and a private courtyard for Zoo Office staff. "Prime park land will be consumed," Wall says. And, according to the plan, trees in the North Meadow will have to be cut down to accommodate the building.
Wall has proposed that office space for zoo staff could be built or rented away from the zoo grounds, preserving land within the Zoo for open space and/or additional animal exhibits. There is no lack of available office space in the area, especially in the Fremont district.
Perhaps the most irksome thing about the 2002 LRP to some Zoo neighbors is the amount of traffic and congestion the proposed expansion of the zoo would bring. While the zoo currently draws over a million people every year to the residential-zoned neighborhood, the 2002 plan anticipates that in the next 18 years, the zoo will draw 1.39 million visitors annually. Ultimately, according to the LRP, the zoo aspires to attract 1.5 million visitors per year.
The Phinney Ridge Community Council's successful appeal of the EIS may cause City Council members to more carefully consider the impact of the Zoo's expansionist plans. The City Council will hold a public hearing for Seattle residents to speak their minds about the LRP. Perhaps some residents will be of the bigger is better mentality. But some may say, as with lower student/teacher ratios and smaller schools, when it comes to zoos, sometimes less is more.
Laurel Holliday is a freelance writer and photographer who lives in Fremont. She can be reached by e-mail at editor@seattlepress.com, attention: Laurel Holliday.
Reader Comments
Discuss this article in the forums!
No comments yet!