Human threat puts them on edge
Residents of the Oaks — P-22 territory — fear that new homes are on the way.
It’s debatable whether Brad Pitt or beloved mountain lion P-22 is the most famous resident of the Oaks, a small hillside neighborhood bounded by Griffith Park on its north and east sides.
The cougar’s territory, however, may soon be pared back — by about 15 acres.
That rare parcel of mostly virgin land — indistinguishable from Griffith Park — is on the market for about $10 million, an agent estimates. That has ignited neighbors’ fears that new homes could be on the way, disrupting the area and erasing favored hiking trails and wildlife habitat.
Already, a 15-home subdivision has been proposed by a trust selling the property, which lies half a mile west of Griffith Observatory.
The proposal includes an optional tear-down of an existing 1952 glass-and-steel house that has sat empty since its previous owner, Benjamin Freiwald, died in late 2015, according to a source connected to the pocket listing, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect business relations.
At least two developers have shown interest but backed off after facing discouraging profit margins and neighbor concerns, said Oaks Homeowners Assn. board member Bob Young. The agency representing the sale would not confirm details.
Although a “private property” sign is posted at the end of Green Oak Drive, where the development would be built, residents largely ignore it. Many consider the vast parcel a backyard, treading its worn paths to access Griffith Park. Hikers often wander onto the property, believing it to be part of the park.
“My kids dig holes and drive their remote-control cars there,” said 11-year resident Renee Dake Wilson, 49, an architect and vice president of the city’s Planning Commission.
Recently, a resident’s wildlife camera captured video of P-22 on the parcel, and the cougar has prowled the Oaks’ streets and backyards. The parcel is also home to at least two “single-occurrence plant species” not found in Griffith, according to biologist surveys.
Neighbors in the Oaks — an 800-home, built-out Los Felizadjacent neighborhood that dates to the 1920s — generally agree that they would like to see fewer — and, if possible, no — homes built on the property.
“Whatever the development is, we would like it to be more limited in scope,” Young said.
A subdivision on the land would entail substantial development.
A road traversing the acreage (connecting Green Oak and Wild Oak drives) would need to be built, requiring considerable grading and infrastructure. Subdivision construction could last over a decade. Emergency vehicle access, already choked along Wild Oak Drive’s tight, 18-foot width, would need to be addressed.
The parcel’s rugged and often steep terrain could accommodate more than 20 homes; lowering that number to 15 was perhaps a starter compromise — although not enough to satisfy some residents, given that the proposed subdivision features homes ranging from 5,000 to 9,000 square feet.
“Putting 10 or 15 McMansion type houses there — it’s just not in character with this neighborhood,” said Caroline Schweich, an events producer who has lived in the Oaks for 15 years.
In January, a developer’s representative met with Councilman David Ryu’s District 4 office, which includes the Oaks, to discuss potentially building in the neighborhood.
“Our office would like to see four to six homes, from a land preservation standpoint, with a buffer between the park and the homes,” said Estevan Jose Montemayor, director of communications for the district.
Any development plan would need city approval, entailing subdivision, a tract map, homeowner outreach and public hearings. The process would take “a number of years,” said Wilson, the 11-year resident.
The HOA, meanwhile, hopes to preserve a portion of the land as open space, possibly by working with environmental organizations, although it has no purchase funds.
Wilson said that although she and her family enjoy the open land, she’s also “an advocate for property rights.”
“So if this property has underlying zoning for X number of houses, we can’t take that away,” she said.