Our neighborhood — tree-lined, open, irreplaceable
Demolished — 40 confirmed units + remainder parcels for future development
Developers are systematically changing our neighborhood — one lot at a time. Using Sacramento's new housing bills, they're replacing single-family homes with dense large-scale developments while City processes continue without public review or community input.
Approximately 12 years ago, the same 2.5-acre property at Parthenia and Shoshone was targeted for a large-scale elder care facility. Our community organized, our HOA engaged, and residents showed up. The project was stopped. The neighborhood was protected. The property remained a beautiful family estate.
✅ We stopped it before — but the rules have changed.
In 2013 there was a public hearing process. Neighbors could speak. Officials had to listen. Today, under Sacramento's new housing bills, that same community review process has been eliminated entirely. The developer does not need a public hearing. There is no vote. There is no community input. That is what has changed — and that is what we are fighting to restore.
Sherwood Forest in Northridge (91325) is a rare gem — one of the last semi-rural, tree-lined communities within the City of Los Angeles. Large lots, mature trees, horse trails, and a peaceful quality of life that is simply irreplaceable. Many of us chose to make Sherwood Forest our home precisely because of these qualities — the open space, the equestrian character, the sense of community, and the tranquility that is increasingly hard to find in a major city. It is worth fighting for.
It started with one developer at Parthenia and Encino, building multi-unit structures completely out of character with the neighborhood's scale, zoning, and equestrian heritage. That same developer then purchased the 2.5-acre estate at Parthenia and Shoshone — and the same pattern began again, this time on a much larger scale. Word spreads fast in the development community — where one succeeds, others follow. White Oak & Parthenia and Louise & Parthenia are already underway. There are other large lots throughout Sherwood Forest that could attract the same attention.
⚠️ If we don't stop this now:
Every large lot in Sherwood Forest becomes a target. Every mature tree becomes a liability in a developer's eyes. Every quiet street becomes a potential construction zone — with no public hearing, no community vote, and no way to stop it once the permits are filed.
That 2.5-acre estate — once a thriving family home with hundreds of mature trees, a swimming pool, and a tennis court — was demolished. The lot is now being divided and permits filed to build 10 two-story buildings per lot — each with an attached Junior ADU. That's potentially 40 confirmed dwelling units (20 per parcel) with remainder parcels marked for future development. The permitting process has already started — with zero public hearings.
The same pattern is repeating across Parthenia Street. Multiple projects are either completed or underway — all by developers using the same state housing laws.
✅ Completed
⚠️ Ongoing / Upcoming
Will YOUR street be next?
We have reached out to Councilman John Lee, the LA Department of Planning, the City Attorney's office, and other departments. Some officials acknowledge the problem and have made efforts to amend the Senate Housing Bills — but legislative reform takes time, and our neighborhood cannot wait. Meanwhile, our zoning protections — RA-1 Low Residential and ZI-248 Equestrian Provisions — have not been adequately addressed under the current approval process.
The fight continues — every email AND phone call to our representatives makes a difference. For a sample letter to send to your officials, scroll to the bottom of this page. Email us to find out more:
These are real photos of the same property — a stunning 2.5-acre estate demolished and stripped bare within months. The MLS listing photos prove it was a thriving, occupied home. The February 2026 photos show what the developer left behind.
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
These Photos Are Legal Evidence
The MLS listing photos prove this was an occupied, thriving family home — not a vacant lot. Public records suggest the sale may have been contingent on the seller delivering a cleared, "vacant" site: the seller's family obtained the demolition permits and demolished the home, after which the buyer's applications describe the parcel as vacant land eligible for streamlined approval. The City's own SHRA Implementation Memo says a project cannot be approved when housing has been demolished to manufacture vacancy — we believe this sequence deserves scrutiny.
124 Trees Cut Down for One Project, While LADWP Asks Residents to Plant More
At the same time LADWP has been running programs encouraging Los Angeles residents to plant trees to cool neighborhoods and clean the air, 124 trees were cut down for this single project, including very old olive trees uprooted from the property, established fruit trees, and over 100 palm trees that may have taken more than a century to grow. Trees like these cannot be replaced by a sapling planted after the fact; the loss is effectively permanent.
According to the Tennessee Environmental Council, one mature tree every year can clean up to:
400 lbs
of air pollution cleaned from the air
$1,250
in air pollution controls
$638
worth of oxygen generated
124 mature trees, including decades-old olive and palm trees, were cut down on this property. Their environmental value to our neighborhood, in cleaner air, cooler temperatures, and carbon absorption, is irreplaceable and was never assessed before demolition. Sherwood Forest's reputation and character rest in real part on its mature tree canopy and green, open feel. Any development here must respect that character, not treat it as an obstacle to be cleared. Source: Deep Root / Tennessee Environmental Council
CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF SHERWOOD FOREST Northridge, CA 91325 • sherwoodforest91325@proton.me • sherwoodforest.us
July 9, 2026
VIA EMAIL Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorney Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney cityatty.help@lacity.org
Vince Bertoni, Director of City Planning Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Executive Office planning.CaseManagement@lacity.org • (213) 978-1271
Kenneth Mejia, City Controller Office of the Los Angeles City Controller controller.mejia@lacity.org • Fraud, Waste & Abuse Unit: controller.lacity.gov/fwa
CC: Councilmember John Lee (CD12), councilmember.Lee@lacity.org; Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo, assemblymember.schiavo@assembly.ca.gov; Senator Henry Stern, Senator.Stern@Senate.Ca.Gov; City Planner Renata Ooms, planning.SHRA@lacity.org; Custodian of Records, Planning.CustodianofRecords@lacity.org
RE: FOLLOW-UP LETTER AND FORMAL COMPLAINT, REQUEST FOR WRITTEN DETERMINATION, VTT-85030- SH-HCA and VTT-85031-SH-HCA, 17545 & 17531 W. Parthenia Street, Northridge, CA 91325
Dear City Attorney Feldstein Soto, Director Bertoni, and Controller Mejia:
We write on behalf of residents of the Sherwood Forest neighborhood of Northridge regarding the above- referenced development at 17545 and 17531 W. Parthenia Street. Since our last correspondence, we have obtained additional public records, including a written statement from the LA County Assessor's Office and a title insurance report, that materially update and strengthen the concerns previously raised with your offices. This letter consolidates our complete, current record and respectfully requests a formal, written response to each item below within 10 business days.
A companion version of this letter, along with the underlying public records referenced herein, is available at sherwoodforest.us for your reference.
I. Sherwood Forest's RA-1 Zoning and the ZI No. 2438 Equine Keeping Ordinance
The Sherwood Forest neighborhood is zoned RA-1, Residential Agriculture, the lowest density residential classification in the City of Los Angeles. This zoning exists precisely to preserve the character of estate and agricultural neighborhoods, including the right of property owners to keep horses and large animals. Many residents purchased their properties in this zoning district with that right in mind, even if they do not currently keep animals. That right belongs not only to residents who currently keep animals, but to every property owner who purchased in this zone with the intention of doing so in the future, a legally protected expectation under the RA-1 designation. Under ZI No. 2438, LADBS is explicitly prohibited from issuing any building permit that creates new habitable space on an RA-1 zoned lot within an Equine Keeping District until the applicant completes and submits an Equine Keeping Checklist Form. We understand a form was submitted in connection with this project. Submission alone, however, does not satisfy the ordinance. The form must be independently reviewed and approved, not simply received as part of a streamlined process.
A development of this scale and density on RA-1 land would permanently eliminate the equine character of this neighborhood and deprive current and future property owners of rights they purchased and pay property taxes to maintain, which is exactly what ZI No. 2438 was designed to prevent. We ask the City to confirm in writing whether the Equine Keeping Checklist Form was independently reviewed and approved, not merely received; whether all distance requirements under LAMC Section 12.24X.5 were properly evaluated, and if not, whether a Zoning Administrator exception was granted, by whom, and when; and, if state law was determined to preempt ZI No. 2438 in this case, the written legal basis for that determination.
II. Community Character, Property Rights, and Environmental Loss at Stake
Sherwood Forest is zoned Very Low Density Residential for a reason. It is why residents chose to live here, and what they have paid a premium, and years of property taxes, to preserve. The neighborhood's character, its estate lots, mature tree canopy, open space, and low-density scale, is not incidental. It is a defining feature that shaped where families chose to put down roots and raise their children.
The original 1941 estate at 17545 Parthenia Street included hundreds of mature trees that, taken together, provided meaningful environmental value to this neighborhood and to the surrounding San Fernando Valley: cleaner air, cooler temperatures, and carbon absorption that a newly planted sapling cannot replace for decades. That value was never assessed before the trees were removed, along with the estate's guesthouse, tennis court, and swimming pool, in the course of a single week.
We are not opposed to housing. We are asking that any development on this site respect the scale, density, and character that residents have paid to preserve, and that the environmental and community value lost in this process be acknowledged and weighed, not treated as incidental to a paperwork exercise.
III. Two LLCs, Same Owner, Same Day: Four Months Before Purchase
California Secretary of State records confirm that 17545 Parthenia St., LLC and 17531 Parthenia St., LLC were both formed on September 24, 2025, by the same individual, Lior Mandelbaum, at the same address (13351 Riverside Drive #422, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423). The property was not purchased until January 30, 2026, four months later. We request that the City conduct a formal project-aggregation analysis under California's anti-piecemealing doctrine before any further permits are processed.
IV. Self-Granted Easement Confirming a Single Project
The approved Tentative Tract Map for VTT-85030 states: “Owner of Lot 17 is granting easement to the owner of Lot 16 via Tract 85031.” Both parcels are controlled by the same individual. We ask whether the City has conducted, or will conduct, a formal aggregation analysis in light of this language, and request the written determination. V. Single APN: No Subdivision Has Ever Been Recorded
Both addresses share Assessor Parcel Number 2768-014-013, historically classified as a single “Single Family Residence, Regular Fee Parcel.” On July 9, 2026, Jacqueline Wong, Ownership Specialist in the LA County Assessor's Office (Correspondence Unit 1), confirmed the following in writing (enclosed as Exhibit B):
“Property information shows there wasn't any documents submitted requesting the parcel 2768-014-013 to be split. There also isn't an AIN on record for 17531 Parthenia St.” , Jacqueline Wong, Ownership Specialist, LA County Office of the Assessor, Correspondence Unit 1 (July 9, 2026)
This confirmation comes five months after two separate LLCs took title as if to two separate lots (January 30, 2026), and more than two months after the Tentative Tract Map was signed and approved (April 28, 2026). We ask the City to explain the legal basis on which two separate applications and two separate grant deeds were processed for a property that remains, to this day, a single, unsplit legal parcel of record.
VI. Vacancy Eligibility: Was This Site Made Vacant to Qualify?
Under SB 1123, a parcel is eligible only if “vacant,” meaning it contains no permanent structure unless abandoned and uninhabitable. This property was continuously occupied by the prior owner's widow from March 2023 through January 2026, per neighboring residents, and MLS photographs confirm a fully furnished, actively lived-in residence at the time of listing. Public records available to us suggest the purchase may have been contingent on the seller delivering a demolished, vacant site before closing. We are not asserting that this contingency was itself unlawful, such terms are common in real estate transactions, but we ask the City to confirm in writing that the “currently vacant” representation on both SHRA applications was independently verified against the statutory definition, given this sequence.
VII. Demolition Permit Signing Timeline: A Documented Irregularity
Demolition Permit #25019-10000-03755 for 17545 W. Parthenia St. (enclosed as Exhibit C, including the Affirmation of Posting and the CEQA Owner's Declaration) was filed by the property's owner of record, the Selan Family Trust, and issued December 9, 2025. However, Lior Mandelbaum, who would not acquire title until January 30, 2026, signed the permit's required “Affirmation of Posting” on October 9, 2025, checking boxes identifying himself as both “Owner” and “Authorized Agent for Owner,” nearly four months before he held any legal interest in the property, and after both development LLCs had already been formed (September 24, 2025). We ask the City to confirm whether this is consistent with permit application requirements, and if not, what corrective action will be taken.
VIII. CEQA “Not a Larger Project” Declaration: Timing Concern
The CEQA “Notice to Owner” declaration accompanying the demolition permit (Exhibit C), certifying that the demolition was not part of a larger development project, was signed by Courtney Selan on November 25, 2025, after both development LLCs already existed. We are not alleging that Ms. Selan knowingly made a false statement; we lack visibility into what she knew at the time. We ask the City to review this documented sequence and confirm whether the certification was independently verified before the permit was issued. IX. Title Insurance Discrepancy Between the Two Parcels
A preliminary title report issued by Fidelity National Title Company (Order No. 1500-2602473, effective January 29, 2026), enclosed as Exhibit A, was issued for the 17531 Parthenia St., LLC purchase and lists the vestee as “17531 Parthenia St., LLC” and the legal description as “Lot 16 of Tract No. 12338” in Schedule A, consistent with 17531 Parthenia St. However, the same report's Property field, and the accompanying Owner's Declaration, Owner's Affidavit, and escrow enclosure letter (all within Exhibit A), identify the property as “17545 Parthenia Street” throughout, and are addressed to the Selan Family Trust as borrower. Separately, Informational Note 5 of this same report (Exhibit A, p. 8) lists both the January 30, 2026 deed to 17531 Parthenia St., LLC and the deed to 17545 Parthenia St., LLC as conveyances “affecting said Land”, using the singular “Land” to describe what is represented elsewhere as two distinct parcels. We ask the City, and respectfully suggest the Controller's Office may also wish to note, that this title company's own paperwork treats the two purported parcels interchangeably, further supporting our position that no legally distinct second parcel existed at the time of these transactions. We recommend the City request the actual recorded grant deeds (Recording Nos. 2026-0070765 and 2026-0070766) to confirm whether each deed in fact used a distinct legal description.
X. Historical Property Records
LADBS records confirm that in 1941 this property contained one house and one garage. No historical LADBS records exist for 17531 W. Parthenia Street as an independently permitted address. We ask on what legal basis 17531 is now treated as a parcel independent of 17545.
XI. Bureau of Engineering Recommended Against Approval
A Bureau of Engineering interdepartmental memorandum dated May 28, 2026, from Principal Civil Engineer Hui M. Huang, recommended that VTT-85030-SH-HCA “not be approved as filed,” citing three specific issues: landlocked lots, missing easement documentation, and incorrect parcel designation. The developer submitted revised plans that same day depicting a common access lane to Shoshone Ave, which appears to resolve the lot- access issue. However, a lane depicted on a site plan is not the same as a recorded legal easement instrument. We ask the City to confirm in writing whether the easement-documentation and parcel-designation issues BOE specifically cited were also resolved, not merely redrawn, before permits were allowed to proceed.
XII. Councilmember's Office Communication with the Assigned Planner
A Public Records Act production shows a representative of Councilmember Lee's office emailed City Planner Renata Ooms directly regarding this project, while presenting himself to residents as a neutral resource, and referred to affected residents, including attorneys among them, as “retirees with too much time on their hands.” We ask that this communication be considered in evaluating the fairness of the process to date.
XIII. Combined Acreage Exceeds the SB 684/SB 1123 Limit
The developer's own application forms show VTT-85031 (1.19 acres) and VTT-85030 (1.15 acres), totaling 2.34 acres, confirmed independently by Council District 12 in a public letter to residents. SB 1123 caps eligible vacant single-family-zoned parcels at 1.5 acres. Evaluated together, as California's anti-piecemealing doctrine requires, this project exceeds that limit by roughly 56%. We ask for written confirmation of whether an aggregation analysis has been performed. XIV. A Proposed Legislative Fix That Does Not Reach This Project
We understand Councilmember Lee wrote to State Senator Stern on February 22, 2026, requesting restoration of the 1,200 sq. ft. cap on detached ADUs, citing the developer's earlier, separate Encino Avenue project. That project used detached ADUs. The Parthenia Street project at issue here uses attached ADUs already under 1,200 sq. ft., meaning this proposed fix would not affect it. We ask that any legislative fix, and any Interim Control Ordinance, explicitly cover both attached and detached ADUs.
XV. Habitat Declaration Signed After Site Clearing
The Owner's Declaration of No Habitat for 17531 Parthenia St. (City Planning Form CP-3608, enclosed as Exhibit E) was signed by Mr. Mandelbaum on March 19, 2026, after the site had already been cleared (demolition finaled March 12, 2026). This declaration relies on a self-certified checklist presumption rather than a pre-clearing biological survey. We are not alleging wrongdoing by any individual; we raise this as a process question: should the City permit “no habitat” certifications to be signed after a site has already been cleared of anything a survey might otherwise have found?
XVI. Permits Advancing While a Companion Case Remains On Hold
City records show that sixteen building permits (Job Numbers B26VN11381 and B26VN11387) were assigned to Plan Check on May 21, 2026, while VTT-85031 remains listed as “On Hold.” We ask the City to clarify how permits tied to a companion, on-hold tract map case are permitted to advance.
. Requested Action
We respectfully request that your offices:
1. Provide written responses to each numbered item above within 10 business days; 2. Direct that further permit processing on both parcels be paused pending resolution of the parcel-split, vacancy, and CEQA questions raised herein; 3. Request the recorded grant deeds (Recording Nos. 2026-0070765 and 2026-0070766) and the underlying purchase agreement to determine whether the two “parcels” were ever legally distinct; 4. In the Controller's case, consider whether this pattern of permit processing warrants review under the Fraud, Waste and Abuse Unit's mandate, given the documented sequence of pre-purchase signings, a Bureau of Engineering rejection followed by same-day resubmission, and permits advancing while a companion case remains on hold.
We are not asking any office to presume wrongdoing by any individual named in this letter. We are asking that the documented, dated sequence of public records set out above receive the formal written review it warrants before any further irreversible action, additional demolition, further construction, or final map recordation, is permitted to proceed.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. The supporting public records referenced throughout this letter are enclosed as Exhibits A through E, and we are glad to provide any of them in an additional format your offices require.
Respectfully, Concerned Residents of Sherwood Forest and Neighboring Communities Northridge, CA 91325 (signatures listed alphabetically by last name) sherwoodforest91325@proton.me • sherwoodforest.us
Enclosures Exhibit A, Fidelity National Title Company Preliminary Report, Order No. 1500-2602473, dated February 13, 2026 (effective January 29, 2026), including Schedule A, Exceptions, Informational Notes, Owner's Declaration, and Owner's Affidavit Exhibit B, Written confirmation from Jacqueline Wong, Ownership Specialist, LA County Office of the Assessor, dated July 9, 2026, including Assessor Work Unit Details for AIN 2768-014-013 Exhibit C, LADBS Demolition Permit #25019-10000-03755 package for 17545 W. Parthenia St., including the Affirmation of Posting (signed October 9, 2025) and the CEQA Owner's Declaration Related to Project Scope (signed November 25, 2025) Exhibit D, LA County Assessor Parcel Viewer summary for AIN 2768-014-013 (17545 Parthenia St.), and Zillow listing history for the same parcel showing 2.34–2.35 acres Exhibit E, City Planning Form CP-3608, Owner's Declaration of No Habitat for 17531 W. Parthenia Street, signed March 19, 2026 All exhibits are available in full at sherwoodforest.us and will be provided in any additional format upon request.
FORMAL COMPLAINT, DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY Filed via ladbs.org complaint portal • July 2026
Property Address: 17545 W. Parthenia Street AND 17531 W. Parthenia Street, Northridge, CA 91325 APN: 2768-014-013 (single APN shared by both addresses, confirmed unsplit as of July 9, 2026) Related Case Numbers: VTT-85030-SH-HCA and VTT-85031-SH-HCA; Building permits B26VN11381 and B26VN11387 Complainant: Concerned Residents of Sherwood Forest and Neighboring Communities, Northridge, CA 91325, sherwoodforest91325@proton.me
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
Building permits have been submitted and have advanced through plan check for a development that: (1) was formally recommended against approval by the Bureau of Engineering; (2) is proceeding on the premise that a single Assessor's Parcel has been legally subdivided into two lots, which County records confirm has never occurred; (3) may not meet SB 684/SB 1123 vacancy-eligibility requirements; and (4) has continued to advance while a companion tract map case remains officially “On Hold.” We ask LADBS to pause further permit action pending written responses to the items below.
1. BUREAU OF ENGINEERING RECOMMENDED AGAINST APPROVAL
On May 28, 2026, BOE Principal Civil Engineer Hui M. Huang formally recommended that VTT-85030-SH-HCA “not be approved as filed,” citing three specific issues: landlocked lots, missing easement documentation, and incorrect parcel designation. The developer submitted revised plans that same day, depicting a common access lane to Shoshone Ave, which appears to resolve the lot-access issue. A depicted access lane, however, is not the same as a recorded legal easement instrument. We ask LADBS to confirm in writing whether the easement- documentation and parcel-designation issues BOE specifically cited were also resolved, not merely redrawn, before permits were allowed to proceed.
2. NO LEGAL SUBDIVISION HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED
Both addresses share Assessor Parcel Number 2768-014-013. On July 9, 2026, Jacqueline Wong, Ownership Specialist with the LA County Assessor's Office, confirmed in writing:
“Property information shows there wasn't any documents submitted requesting the parcel 2768-014-013 to be split. There also isn't an AIN on record for 17531 Parthenia St.”, Jacqueline Wong, LA County Office of the Assessor (July 9, 2026)
This is five months after two LLCs took title as if to two separate lots, and over two months after the Tentative Tract Map was signed and approved. We ask LADBS to confirm what legal basis supports processing building permits for two parcels when the County itself recognizes only one.
3. DEMOLITION PERMIT SIGNING TIMELINE
Demolition Permit #25019-10000-03755 was filed by the property's owner of record, the Selan Family Trust, and issued December 9, 2025. Separately, Lior Mandelbaum, who did not acquire title until January 30, 2026, signed the permit's “Affirmation of Posting” on October 9, 2025, checking boxes identifying himself as both “Owner” and “Authorized Agent for Owner” months before he held any legal interest in the property. We ask LADBS to confirm whether this is consistent with its permit application requirements.
4. VACANCY ELIGIBILITY
The property was continuously occupied through January 2026 per neighboring residents and MLS records. Public records suggest the purchase may have been contingent on the seller delivering a demolished, vacant site before closing. We are not asserting this contingency itself was unlawful, but we ask LADBS/Planning to confirm the “currently vacant” representation on the SHRA applications was independently verified against the SB 1123 statutory definition.
5. PERMITS ADVANCING WHILE A COMPANION CASE IS ON HOLD
City records show that building permits under Job Numbers B26VN11381 and B26VN11387 were assigned to Plan Check on May 21, 2026, while VTT-85031 remains listed as “On Hold.” We ask LADBS to clarify how permits tied to an on-hold companion case are permitted to advance.
REQUESTED ACTION
We formally request that LADBS: (1) place a hold on all building permits related to B26VN11381 and B26VN11387 pending resolution of the eligibility questions above; (2) verify that the SHRA/SB 684 eligibility checklist has been properly completed for the current lot configuration; (3) confirm whether the demolition permit's posting affirmation was properly executed; and (4) provide a written response to each item above.
We also ask that this office confirm receipt of this complaint in writing and provide a reference or case number under which it has been logged, so that we may follow up appropriately.
This complaint is submitted on behalf of the residents listed in the attached Exhibit A. Please see the notice at the top of that attachment regarding its intended use.
Supporting documentation (title report, Assessor correspondence, and permit records) is available upon request. Contact: sherwoodforest91325@proton.me | sherwoodforest.us
FORMAL FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE COMPLAINT Office of the City Controller, Kenneth Mejia • controller.lacity.gov/fwa
Subject: Procedural irregularities in the processing of VTT-85030-SH-HCA and VTT-85031-SH-HCA, 17545 & 17531 W. Parthenia Street, Northridge, CA 91325 Complainant: Concerned Residents of Sherwood Forest and Neighboring Communities, Northridge, CA 91325, sherwoodforest91325@proton.me
SUMMARY
Public records obtained through the California Public Records Act, together with a written confirmation from the LA County Assessor's Office, show a pattern of procedural irregularities in how the Department of City Planning and LADBS have processed this development: a Bureau of Engineering rejection followed by same-day resubmission; two applications processed as if for separate parcels despite County confirmation that no legal subdivision exists; a Council District office communicating privately with the assigned planner while presenting itself publicly as neutral; and permits advancing while a companion case remains on hold. We ask the Controller's Fraud, Waste and Abuse Unit to evaluate whether this pattern warrants a formal review of Planning and LADBS permit-processing practices.
1. BUREAU OF ENGINEERING OVERRULED WITH NO WRITTEN EXPLANATION
On May 28, 2026, BOE Principal Civil Engineer Hui M. Huang formally recommended that VTT-85030-SH-HCA “not be approved as filed,” citing three specific issues: landlocked lots, missing easement documentation, and incorrect parcel designation. Revised plans submitted the same day depict a common access lane to Shoshone Ave, which appears to resolve the lot-access issue. A depicted access lane is not the same as a recorded legal easement instrument, however, and no written confirmation is available that the easement-documentation or parcel-designation issues were also resolved rather than simply redrawn.
2. AN ADMITTED NOVEL, UNPRECEDENTED STRUCTURE
The developer's own email to City Planner Renata Ooms states: “Because I cannot utilize the remainder lot for another SB1123 or SB 9 and the maximum that I can have is 10 lots, that's why I am revising the map.” City Planning's own Housing Policy staff separately described this as the first project to file in Los Angeles that includes remainder parcels, an admission that this structure is untested and was not the scenario these statutes were designed around.
3. NO LEGAL SUBDIVISION HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED
Both parcels share Assessor Parcel Number 2768-014-013. On July 9, 2026, Jacqueline Wong of the LA County Assessor's Office confirmed in writing:
“Property information shows there wasn't any documents submitted requesting the parcel 2768-014-013 to be split. There also isn't an AIN on record for 17531 Parthenia St.”, Jacqueline Wong, LA County Office of the Assessor (July 9, 2026)
This is five months after two LLCs took title as if to two separate lots, and more than two months after the Tentative Tract Map was signed and approved. A preliminary title report for the 17531 Parthenia St., LLC purchase (Fidelity National Title, Order No. 1500-2602473) further lists the property field, Owner's Declaration, and Owner's Affidavit as “17545 Parthenia Street” throughout, and separately lists both LLCs' deeds as conveyances affecting the same singular “Land.” We ask the Controller's Office to consider whether City departments adequately verified parcel status before processing two separate applications and permit sets.
4. SELF-GRANTED EASEMENT AND COMBINED ACREAGE OVER THE STATUTORY LIMIT
The approved Tentative Tract Map for VTT-85030 states that the “owner of Lot 17 is granting easement to the owner of Lot 16,” confirming common ownership and control of both parcels. Combined, the two applications total 2.34 acres, confirmed independently in a public letter from Council District 12, exceeding SB 684/SB 1123's 1.5-acre cap for vacant single-family-zoned parcels by roughly 56%. No aggregation analysis under California's anti-piecemealing doctrine has been made available to the public.
5. VACANCY ELIGIBILITY AND DEMOLITION PERMIT TIMELINE
The property was occupied through January 2026 per neighboring residents. Public records suggest the sale may have been contingent on the seller delivering a demolished, vacant site before closing, the demolition permit was filed by the seller (Selan Family Trust) and issued December 9, 2025, while Lior Mandelbaum, the eventual buyer, signed the permit's posting affirmation as “Owner”/“Authorized Agent” on October 9, 2025, nearly four months before acquiring title. We are not alleging any individual's statements were knowingly false; we ask whether City departments independently verified vacancy status and permit-signing authority given this sequence.
6. HABITAT DECLARATION SIGNED AFTER SITE CLEARING
The Owner's Declaration of No Habitat for 17531 Parthenia St. was signed March 19, 2026, after the site had already been cleared (demolition finaled March 12, 2026). We raise this as a process question about whether the City's habitat-clearance procedure allows a site to be cleared before a no-habitat certification is obtained.
7. PERMITS ADVANCING WHILE A COMPANION CASE REMAINS ON HOLD
Sixteen building permits (Job Numbers B26VN11381 and B26VN11387) were assigned to Plan Check on May 21, 2026, while VTT-85031 remains listed as “On Hold.” We ask whether this reflects a gap in the City's internal case- coordination controls.
REQUESTED ACTION
We ask the Fraud, Waste and Abuse Unit to review whether this pattern of permit processing, spanning Planning, LADBS, and a Council District office, warrants a formal audit of how ministerial streamlining review is conducted and internally coordinated across City departments for this and similarly structured projects.
We also ask that this office confirm receipt of this complaint in writing and provide a reference or case number under which it has been logged, so that we may follow up appropriately.
This complaint is submitted on behalf of the residents listed in the attached Exhibit A. Please see the notice at the top of that attachment regarding its intended use.
All supporting documents referenced above are available upon request. Contact: sherwoodforest91325@proton.me | sherwoodforest.us
A timeline that raises serious questions, a $65,000/month rental listing, and a development that raises questions about how state housing laws are being applied in established neighborhoods. The public record raises questions worth examining.
California Secretary of State records confirm that both 17545 Parthenia St. LLC and 17531 Parthenia St. LLC were formed on the exact same day — September 24, 2025 — by the same individual, at the same address in Sherman Oaks. The property was not purchased until January 30, 2026 — four months later.
17545 Parthenia St. LLC
Filed: September 24, 2025
Agent: Lior Mandelbaum
Status: Active
17531 Parthenia St. LLC
Filed: September 24, 2025
Agent: Lior Mandelbaum
Status: Active
This public record raises serious questions: if two separate LLCs were created four months before the property was even purchased — each named after a specific address on the same parcel — this suggests detailed plans existed well before the demolition permit was filed. The City has been asked to determine whether these two applications represent one coordinated project under common ownership and control.
Los Angeles can issue an Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) — a temporary emergency zoning law that freezes building permits, grading, and demolitions in a specific area for 1–2 years while the City updates long-term community plans. This is one of the strongest tools available to halt what's happening on Parthenia Street right now.
What you can do:
Demand that Councilman John Lee introduce an ICO for the Sherwood Forest / Northridge area immediately. Assemblywoman Schiavo has already indicated support for the required findings. Every call and email demanding an ICO helps make it happen.
The completed development at 8670 Encino Ave — built by the same developer using the same state housing law loopholes — was listed on Apartments.com for $65,000 per month. 15 bedrooms. 18 bathrooms. 10,620 sq ft. This is not a starter home. This is not affordable housing. These laws were designed to help working families buy homes — not intended for developments of this scale in established low-density neighborhoods.
Both remainder parcels (Lot 11) are marked "For Future Use Vacant" on the developer's own submitted plans — confirming additional development is planned beyond the confirmed 40 units. The developer's own email states he cannot use the remainder lots for SB 1123 or SB 9 — meaning a different mechanism will be used for future phases.
Through a California Public Records Act request, we obtained the City's own internal documents. What they reveal is extraordinary — and it all comes from the government's own files.
In an official interdepartmental memorandum, BOE Principal Civil Engineer Hui M. Huang formally recommended that VTT-85030-SH-HCA "not be approved as filed" — citing three issues: landlocked lots, missing easement documentation, and incorrect parcel designation. The developer submitted revised plans the same day showing a common access lane to Shoshone Ave, which appears to resolve the lot-access issue. However, showing access on a site plan is not the same as recording a legal easement instrument. We are asking the City to confirm in writing whether the easement documentation and parcel-designation issues BOE specifically cited were also resolved — not merely redrawn.
This document was produced by the City in response to our Public Records Act request.
In an email to City Planner Renata Ooms, developer Lior Mandelbaum wrote: "Because I cannot utilize the remainder lot for another SB1123 or SB 9 and the maximum that I can have is 10 lots — that's why I am revising the map." The City's own Housing Policy staff called this "the first project to file in LA that includes remainder parcels."
An unprecedented exploitation of state law — confirmed by the developer himself.
The revised plans — submitted the same day as the BOE rejection — reveal the project has a marketing name: Parthenia Villas 2 (VTT-85031) and Parthenia Villas 3 (VTT-85030). A numbered series implies a Parthenia Villas 1 already exists. Each application now shows 10 units + 1 remainder parcel = 40 confirmed dwelling units across both parcels, with remainder parcels left for future development.
10
Units + ADU per parcel
40+
Confirmed dwelling units
In a public letter to residents, Council District 12 independently confirmed our key findings, stating: "The Parcel is 2.34 Acres and contains two lots within one Area Parcel Number (APN)." CD12 also acknowledged that "this current project would never succeed or receive our support under traditional planning rules" - an extraordinary admission that this development is only possible through ministerial streamlining, not because it fits the neighborhood.
These admissions from CD12 itself confirm our combined acreage argument and the inappropriateness of this development for an RA-1 neighborhood.
Under SB 1123, "vacant" means "having no permanent structure, unless the permanent structure is abandoned and uninhabitable." This property had a permanent structure that was actively occupied by the owner's widow throughout the nearly 3-year listing period (March 2023 to January 2026) — confirmed by neighboring residents. MLS listing photographs show a fully furnished residence. The property went into escrow September 30, 2025. Public records suggest the sale may have been contingent on the seller delivering a demolished, vacant lot before closing — the demolition permit (#25019-10000-03755) was issued December 9, 2025, under the Selan Family Trust as owner of record, while the widow may still have been in residence. We are asking the City to confirm the "currently vacant" declaration on both SHRA applications was independently verified against the statutory definition.
MLS price history, listing photographs, and neighbor testimony all confirm active occupancy.
Public records show the demolition permit (#25019-10000-03755) for 17545 W. Parthenia St. was filed under the property's owner of record at the time, the Selan Family Trust, and issued December 9, 2025. The CEQA "Notice to Owner" declaration — certifying the demolition was not part of a larger development project — was signed by Courtney Selan on November 25, 2025. We are not alleging that any individual knowingly made a false statement; we don't have visibility into what any party knew at the time. But we do note a separate, documented irregularity: Lior Mandelbaum — who would not acquire title to the property until January 30, 2026 — signed the required "Affirmation of Posting" for this same permit on October 9, 2025, checking boxes identifying himself as both "Owner" and "Authorized Agent for Owner," months before he held any legal interest in the property, and while both development LLCs (formed September 24, 2025) already existed. We believe this documented sequence — a buyer signing permit paperwork as owner before closing, alongside a seller's certification that the demolition was unrelated to any future project — warrants formal review by the City Planning Department and City Attorney's office, not a conclusion by us.
Sep 24, 2025
Both LLCs formed
Oct 9, 2025
Mandelbaum signs posting affirmation as "Owner"/"Agent" — before purchase
Nov 25, 2025
Selan signs CEQA "not a larger project" declaration
Dec 9, 2025
Demo permit issued
The following questions arise from publicly available records related to this development. We believe they warrant formal review and written responses from the City of Los Angeles.
On Jan 30, 2026, two LLCs took title as if to two separate lots, months before any tract map was even filed (Apr 2, 2026) or approved (Apr 28, 2026). As of July 9, 2026, the LA County Assessor's Office (Ownership Division) confirmed in writing: "there wasn't any documents submitted requesting the parcel 2768-014-013 to be split. There also isn't an AIN on record for 17531 Parthenia St." County records also show the parcel's full 102,175 sq ft (2.35 acres) matches the entire original estate listing — with no separate acreage left over for a second lot.
Confirmed in writing, July 9, 2026, by Jacqueline Wong, Ownership Specialist, LA County Assessor's Office.
The property contained a residential structure dating back to the 1940s. Public records suggest the sale may have been contingent on the seller delivering a demolished, "vacant" lot — after demolition (which included removal of hundreds of trees, filling of the swimming pool, and removal of the tennis court), applications were submitted under SB 1123, a law designed for genuinely vacant land. The City's own SHRA Implementation Memo states that a project may not be approved when housing has been demolished to manufacture vacancy. We are asking the City to confirm in writing that this eligibility requirement was independently verified.
The demolition permit date and SHRA application date are public record — and the timeline between them warrants scrutiny.
Both parcels are owned by the same LLC — 17531 Parthenia Street LLC, c/o Lior Mandelbaum — and use the same engineering firm. By filing two separate applications, the combined project appears to stay below the 10-unit threshold that triggers full public review. Combined across both parcels: 40 confirmed dwelling units (20 per parcel), with two remainder parcels marked for future development. California's anti-piecemealing doctrine addresses exactly this type of project fragmentation, and we have formally requested a written determination from the City.
Same owner. Same engineer. Two applications that raise piecemealing concerns under California law.
SB 1123 limits eligible single-family-zoned parcels to a maximum of 1.5 acres. The submitted Tract Map for Lot 16 alone shows a remainder parcel of 25,656 square feet — over half an acre by itself. The City has not provided written confirmation that the full pre-subdivision acreage was independently verified. Subdivision Map Act compliance — including legal lot configuration, easements, dedications, and access rights — has never been publicly confirmed.
This is a 2.5-acre estate. SB 1123 was written for lots under 1.5 acres.
With 40 confirmed units on two adjacent parcels sharing a common access and fire lane, no cumulative infrastructure analysis has been conducted — for sewer, water, electrical, stormwater, roadway capacity, or emergency services. The City has never publicly disclosed whether existing infrastructure can safely support this density.
40+ confirmed units. One access road. No traffic or emergency access study. Ever.
This area faces serious wildfire risk, earthquake danger, and already-critical evacuation concerns. Yet no Fire Department review has been conducted — no fire-flow analysis, no hydrant assessment, no emergency ingress/egress review, no roadway-width compliance check, and no evacuation impact analysis. Parthenia Street already gridlocks at peak hours. Adding 40+ households with no emergency access plan is a life-safety issue.
No fire review. No evacuation plan. In a high fire risk zone.
Even ministerial projects must comply with all objective zoning standards — setbacks, lot width, frontage, access, height, grading, drainage, parking, and subdivision requirements. We are asking the City to confirm in writing that all objective code standards have been met, even under ministerial processing. Specific overlay protections — including the ZI-248 Equestrian Provisions and community plan consistency requirements — have never been publicly addressed.
Ministerial does not mean lawless. Objective standards still apply.
VTT-85031 (1.19 acres) + VTT-85030 (1.15 acres) = 2.34 acres total — confirmed by the developer's own application forms. Under SB 684, the limit for single-family zoned vacant land is 1.5 acres. Evaluated together as one project — which California's anti-piecemealing doctrine requires — this project exceeds the legal limit by 56%. No aggregation analysis has been conducted.
Residents should demand written confirmation that every one of these requirements has been independently verified before any further approval is granted.
Email — July 9, 2026
"Property information shows there wasn't any documents submitted requesting the parcel 2768-014-013 to be split. There also isn't an AIN on record for 17531 Parthenia St."
— Jacqueline Wong, Ownership Specialist, LA County Office of the Assessor, Correspondence Unit 1
These photos are from Parthenia & Encino — just one block away — where the same developer completed a similar project. Dark, industrial-looking two-story structures completely out of character with Sherwood Forest's established neighborhood character. Now imagine 40 confirmed units plus remainder parcels for future development on the corner of Parthenia and Shoshone.
Parthenia & Encino — Already Built
Industrial look — no regard for neighborhood character
Dense wall of structures blocking the street
Construction — Montejo Demolition containers on site
Official revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 85030 — filed June 3, 2026. Shows 10 homes (Unit-A + attached JDU each) plus Lot 11 remainder parcel for future development. This is the developer's own submitted plan — not a rendering.
Aerial composite overlaid on the actual lot at Parthenia & Shoshone — 40 confirmed units, no trees, no open space, remainder parcels reserved for future development
⚠ Artistic rendering — actual plan: 10 homes + 10 JDUs per lot = 40 confirmed units. Remainder parcels larger than shown.
Now imagine 40 confirmed units — plus remainder parcels for future development
crammed onto the corner of Parthenia and Shoshone — where a stunning 2.5-acre estate with hundreds of mature trees, a tennis court, and a swimming pool once stood. All built without a single public hearing, without any traffic or safety study, and without one vote from the community that has to live next to them.
Official revised tract map: 10 residential lots (Unit-A + attached JDU each) + Lot 11 remainder parcel "For Future Use Vacant" (13,347 sq ft). One of two identical applications — combined: 40 confirmed units.
⚠️ Rendering shows confirmed 40 units across 2 lots — remainder parcels reserved for future development
Aerial rendering showing two lots side by side: 10 townhomes + JDU per lot = 40 confirmed units. Remainder parcels at bottom of each lot marked for future development. Surrounding single-family homes shown for scale and contrast.
40
Confirmed dwelling units (20 per parcel)
2
Remainder parcels — "Future Use Vacant"
2.34
Combined acres — 56% over SB 684 limit
These neighbors live next to the Parthenia & Encino development — built by the same developer now planning 40+ confirmed units at Parthenia & Shoshone. Their experience is a preview of what's coming.
"They cut down every tree. The noise, the dust, the traffic — it never stops. Our property values, our peace of mind, our entire way of life has been destroyed. And when we complained, no one listened. No one from the City even came to see what was happening to us."
— Christy, Adjacent Resident
"We've lived here for over 30 years. This was a horse community — our kids rode on these trails. Now we look at concrete boxes where beautiful oaks used to be. Our quality of life has been dramatically impacted and we feel the City has not adequately addressed our concerns."
— John, Long-time Sherwood Forest Resident
On February 22, 2026, Councilman John Lee wrote to State Senator Henry Stern asking him to restore the 1,200 sq ft cap on detached ADUs — citing the developer's earlier Encino Ave project ("1 Block East") as the example. That project used detached ADUs, so the fix would apply there.
The Parthenia Street project, however, uses attached ADUs already under 1,200 sq ft. A fix aimed only at detached ADUs would not stop or slow this project at all — even though it may be presented to residents as addressing "the problem" here.
What we are asking for:
Any legislative fix, and any ICO, must explicitly cover both attached and detached ADUs — otherwise it closes a loophole from a different project while leaving this one untouched.
Every single person who speaks up makes a difference. Call AND email your representatives, spread the word, and stay connected. For a sample letter to send to your officials, scroll down to the bottom of this page. If we don't fight for Sherwood Forest, your neighborhood could be next.
Get involved — your voice matters
Send us an email to find out more:
Every neighbor who gets involved makes a difference.
A 2-minute phone call carries far more weight than an email. Please call AND email every official listed below. Be polite but firm — tell them you are a constituent and demand action.
Use our template letter at the bottom of this page, or write your own. Every contact counts.
Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo
CA Assembly District 40
LA City Attorney — Heidi Feldstein Soto
City Attorney's Office
LA City Planning — Custodian of Public Records
Request official documents and formal written responses
LA Department of Planning
Case Management & SHRA Division
LADBS (Building & Safety)
⚠️ PERMITS ARE ACTIVELY MOVING THROUGH PLAN CHECK — TIME IS CRITICAL
Click Copy, paste into your email client, fill in your name and address, and send. Every email counts — the City must log and respond to each one.
TO: planning.SHRA@lacity.org; planning.CaseManagement@lacity.org; Planning.CustodianofRecords@lacity.org
CC: councilmember.Lee@lacity.org; cityatty.help@lacity.org; Senator.Stern@Senate.Ca.Gov; assemblymember.schiavo@assembly.ca.gov
BCC: sherwoodforest91325@proton.me
Subject: FORMAL INQUIRY — VTT-85030-SH-HCA and VTT-85031-SH-HCA — 17545 & 17531 W. Parthenia Street, Northridge CA 91325 — Request for Written Determination
Dear Ms. Ooms, City Planning Department, and Custodian of Public Records,
I am a concerned resident of Sherwood Forest, Northridge CA 91325, writing on behalf of myself and fellow neighbors who have expressed deep concern about the above-referenced development and have asked me to formally inquire on their behalf.
The approved and proposed phases appear designed to allow substantially more dwelling units than the public is being led to believe. Based on the plans currently available, the ultimate buildout could reach approximately 40 confirmed dwelling units (10 homes + 10 JDUs per parcel) with remainder parcels marked for future development. We are formally requesting the City confirm the total anticipated unit count across both parcels before any further permits are processed.
I. TWO LLCs — SAME OWNER — SAME DAY — FOUR MONTHS BEFORE PURCHASE
California Secretary of State records confirm that both 17545 Parthenia St. LLC and 17531 Parthenia St. LLC were formed on the exact same day — September 24, 2025 — by the same individual, Lior Mandelbaum, at the same address in Sherman Oaks. The property was not purchased until January 30, 2026 — four months later. We formally request a project aggregation analysis under California's anti-piecemealing doctrine before any further permits are processed.
II. SELF-GRANTED EASEMENT CONFIRMING ONE PROJECT
The approved Tentative Tract Map for VTT-85030 explicitly states: "Owner of Lot 17 is granting easement to the owner of Lot 16 via Tract 85031." This language in the developer's own filed documents confirms both applications are components of one coordinated project. Has the City conducted a formal aggregation analysis? Please provide the written determination.
III. SINGLE APN — BOTH PARCELS
Both addresses share Assessor Parcel Number 2768-014-013. The County Assessor classifies this as a single "Single Family Residence — Regular Fee Parcel." On what legal basis were two separate applications accepted for a property sharing one APN?
IV. VACANCY ELIGIBILITY
LADBS records confirm a residence existed on this property since 1941, demolished March 12, 2026 — 33 days before this application was filed. Please provide written confirmation that vacancy eligibility was independently verified.
V. HISTORICAL PROPERTY RECORDS
LADBS records confirm one house and one garage in 1941 with no records for 17531 as a separate address. On what legal basis is 17531 recognized as a separate legal parcel?
VI. PERMITS MOVING WHILE CASE ON HOLD
16 building permits were assigned to Plan Check on May 21, 2026 while VTT-85031 remains "On Hold." How can permits advance while the underlying Tract Map case is on hold?
We respectfully request written responses to each question within 10 business days.
Respectfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
Northridge, CA 91325
[Your Email]
sherwoodforest.us
Legally-grounded letters and formal complaints have been submitted to the City Attorney, the Director of City Planning, the City Controller, and LADBS. As of this update, no department has responded to any of these filings.
To: Director of Planning, City Attorney, City Controller; no response received
Community
Wide support
8
Legal sections
0
Responses received
"This is our neighborhood. A 2.5-acre family estate that stood since 1941 was demolished in a matter of days — with no public hearing, no environmental review, and no notice to neighbors. We are not opposed to housing. We are opposed to a process that was clearly designed to bypass every safeguard that exists for exactly this kind of situation."
From the letter sent to City officials, June 2026
December 2025 — January 2026
Prior to our formal demand letter, residents submitted letters to Councilman Lee's office, City Planning, LADBS, and state legislators raising early eligibility and zoning concerns.
Issues raised:
To: City Attorney, Director of City Planning, City Controller, cc: Councilmember Lee, Assemblywoman Schiavo, Senator Stern; no response received
71
Households signed
16
Numbered findings
5
Supporting exhibits
0
Responses received
We are not asking any office to presume wrongdoing by any individual named in this letter. We are asking that the documented, dated sequence of public records receive the formal written review it warrants before any further irreversible action is permitted to proceed.
A similar letter, covering all of the same findings except Section XII (Councilmember's Office Communication with the Assigned Planner), was independently sent by the Sherwood Forest Homeowners Association on July 11, 2026. No response has been received to that letter either.
Filed by Concerned Residents, July 9, 2026
Requests a hold on all building permits pending resolution of the eligibility questions raised in our findings, including the unresolved BOE rejection, the unsplit parcel, and the demolition permit signing irregularity.
Filed by Concerned Residents, July 9, 2026
Submitted to the Fraud, Waste and Abuse Unit, requesting a formal audit of how this project's ministerial streamlining review was conducted and coordinated across Planning, LADBS, and a Council District office.
Sacramento has passed a series of bills that strip local communities of zoning protections — intended to address the housing shortage. The result? How these laws are applied in established low-density neighborhoods like Sherwood Forest raises important questions about their intended scope.
Allows up to 10 residential units on parcels in "urban areas" with ministerial approval — no public hearing, no community input. This is one of the bills being used to push through the Shoshone & Parthenia development without any community review.
Expands SB 684 by allowing condominium subdivisions on single-family lots — making it even easier for developers to build, subdivide, and sell with no regard for neighborhood character. Designed for genuinely vacant urban infill land, not established neighborhoods like ours.
Allows developers to split single-family lots and build up to 4 units (plus ADUs) on land zoned for one home. Questions have been raised about owner-occupancy affidavit requirements when the same party has multiple applications on the same street.
Allows up to 8 ADUs on multifamily properties. Developers use SB 9 to first create "multifamily" parcels, then stack ADUs on top — multiplying the density far beyond what any single bill intended.
The City argues SB 1211 eliminates local control over ADU size limits on SB 9 parcels. Our legal counsel disagrees.
RA-1 Low Residential Zoning
Designed to protect single-family neighborhoods with large lots and semi-rural character. Completely overridden by SB 9 ministerial approvals.
ZI-248 Equestrian Provisions
Protects equine uses including open area, setbacks, grading, drainage, and access. State housing laws do NOT preempt these objective standards — yet these provisions have not been adequately addressed in the current approval process.
If a neighborhood with equestrian protections, RA-1 zoning, and hundreds of mature trees can be transformed at this scale without a single public hearing or community input — no neighborhood in Los Angeles is safe. The time to act is now.
Email us to find out more and get involved