Our neighborhood — tree-lined, open, irreplaceable
Demolished — 40 confirmed units + remainder parcels for future development
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 landlocked lots, missing easement documentation, and incorrect parcel designation. Building permits advanced through plan check anyway. No written explanation of who overruled this recommendation has ever been provided.
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
A Public Records Act document shows CD12 Planning Director Dan Rosales privately emailing assigned City Planner Renata Ooms — while presenting himself to residents as a neutral resource. In that official email, Mr. Rosales referred to Sherwood Forest residents including attorneys as "retirees with too much time on their hands." He simultaneously requested project files through a back channel.
A formal Ethics Commission complaint has been filed regarding this conduct.
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 — the demolition permit was filed October 9, 2025 — while the widow may still have been in residence. The "currently vacant" declaration on both SHRA applications is inaccurate under the statutory definition.
MLS price history, listing photographs, and neighbor testimony all confirm active occupancy.
A neighbor with real estate development expertise has identified a critical concern. MLS records confirm the property went into escrow September 30, 2025. The demolition permit was filed October 9, 2025 — while in escrow. Mandelbaum had already formed both development LLCs on September 24, 2025 — 15 days before the demolition permit — and civil engineering work was underway since August 2025. The demolition permit requires a CEQA certification declaring the demolition is NOT part of a larger project. Given the pre-existing LLC formation and engineering work, that certification may constitute a false declaration on a city permit application.
Aug 2025
Engineering begins
Sep 24, 2025
LLCs formed
Oct 9, 2025
Demo permit filed
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.
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. The City's own SHRA Implementation Memo says a project cannot be approved when housing has been demolished to manufacture vacancy. The developer demolished the home, then applied under a law designed for genuinely vacant land.
The True Cost of Cutting Down Hundreds of Mature Trees
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
Hundreds of mature 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. A hundred trees can also potentially clean the air for adjacent neighborhoods as well. Source: Deep Root / Tennessee Environmental Council
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
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.
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
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.
On February 22, 2026, Councilman John Lee wrote to State Senator Henry Stern asking him to restore the 1,200 sq ft cap specifically on detached ADUs — citing the Encino & Parthenia project as an example of the problem.
It is important to note that the new Shoshone & Parthenia project uses attached ADUs. Any amendment that only addresses detached ADUs would not apply to attached ADUs. This is why any legislative fix, and any ICO, must explicitly cover both attached and detached ADUs to be effective.
What we are asking for:
An Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) covering both attached and detached ADUs is urgently needed to freeze further approvals while legislators close all the relevant loopholes — not just some of them.
Revised plans: 10 residential lots + 1 remainder parcel per application. 20 confirmed units per parcel, 40 total. Remainder parcels marked "Future Use Vacant."
⚠️ 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
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.
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.
The property contained a residential structure dating back to the 1940s. 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 prior to application. 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.
Residents should demand written confirmation that every one of these requirements has been independently verified before any further approval is granted.
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 City officials and oversight agencies. No responses have been received from the Director of Planning, City Attorney, or City Controller.
To: Director of Planning, City Attorney, City Controller — No response received
60
Resident signatories
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 signed by 60 Sherwood Forest residents, June 2026
June 11, 2026 — Dan Rosales Jr. to Renata Ooms
This email — produced by the City in response to our Public Records Act request — shows the Planning Director of Council District 12 privately communicating with the assigned City Planner about this project, while simultaneously presenting himself to residents as a neutral resource.
What the email reveals:
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:
LADBS
Formal complaint re: permits advancing over BOE objection
FiledEthics Commission
Complaint re: CD12 conflict of interest
FiledCity Controller
Fraud, Waste & Abuse complaint re: procedural failures
FiledSacramento 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