Opinion: Stuck between city rules and a hard place on granny flats

To the editor: I am one of those people who has prior approval for a granny flat, only to be told by the city of Los Angeles that the project is now dead on arrival.

I have borrowed money in order to build this second residence for an actual granny. My plans call for a single-story cottage at the very rear of a half-acre property that will be invisible from the street. Five other half-acre parcels on my street have been subdivided with the city’s blessing in the last few years.

( “ ‘Granny flats’ left in limbo amid debate,” Aug. 28)

I am told that 7,000 square feet can be legally added to my existing house under city codes and Studio City overlay rules, but a mere 10% to 15% of that amount cannot be built in a separate structure.

The dispute over granny flats has nothing to do with parking and aesthetics. It has everything to do with NIMBY folks trying to artificially inflate property values by holding down construction.

Bill Friedman, Studio City

::

To the editor: The article did not consider these important points: If L.A. politicians are killing single-family residential zoning, they should do it openly. This zoning was designed to protect against overdevelopment. That’s the whole point. It’s why these neighborhoods are such great places to call home.

By referring to second dwelling units as “granny flats,” the article paints well-intended grannies and rapacious developers with the same brush. It fails to provide a sense of the sheer size of many of these new two-story second dwelling units, and how they affect the average single-family neighborhood with small lots.

Danielle Langlois, Van Nuys

::

To the editor: On what streets will all the cars of all the people living, working or shopping in these new developments drive, and where will all the cars park?

How many major new streets have been added in Los Angeles since the grand boulevards were developed in the 1920s, or in the San Fernando Valley after World War II? Residential and commercial development without adequate parking has too often been approved.

Our city long ago exceeded the vehicular carrying capacity. Development in most of the desirable parts of the city should be prohibited until the transportation infrastructure — the Gold Line, Purple Line and Green Line — have been completed.

Daniel Fink, Beverly Hills

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook