Council approves accessory dwelling unit at 436–438 E. Wright Boulevard after public objections, adds conditions

Universal City Council on Feb. (date not specified) granted a specific-use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit at 436–438 East Wright Boulevard, following a public hearing in which nearby residents described repeated nuisances at the property and council members negotiated conditions to address neighbors’ concerns.

Neighbors who live adjacent to the property criticized past tenant behavior, citing trash, loud music and a trailer parked on the street. “Tenants did not care about the neighborhood,” said Alexandra Williams, who identified herself as living next door. Williams said the house had been renovated and then rented, and she described repeated problems while tenants occupied the property.

The applicant, Jose Alejandro Barrera, told the council he plans to occupy the main house after construction and that a family member would occupy the ADU. “I’ll be occupying the home once the construction’s being done,” Barrera said during council discussion.

Council members pressed Barrera and staff on specifics about the proposed structure, parking and fences. Planning staff explained the request had been recommended for approval 8–1 by the Planning & Zoning Commission and noted that a recently adopted city tool — a unity-of-title agreement — allows construction across the two zoning lots involved so long as the agreement is recorded at the county.

Council aired several concerns raised by neighbors, including on-street parking pressure and yard maintenance. In response the council approved the permit with three specific conditions: limit the ADU to no more than 768 square feet; remove the fence between the main house and the ADU; and provide an additional off-street parking accommodation (for example, a driveway flare or other off-street space) to reduce on-street parking demand. Council also directed that code-enforcement and utilities processes remain available to address recurring trash or parking complaints.

The motion, as read by staff, carried after council amended it to add the three conditions. The permit requires the unity-of-title agreement to be recorded at the county prior to issuance of the building permit.

The ADU proposal prompted lengthy public comment and council discussion. Speakers who opposed the permit cited long-term residents’ concerns about property maintenance and safety; supporters and the applicant emphasized planned improvements and the applicant’s stated intent to live on-site.

With the vote, the council did not adopt occupancy limits tied to ownership (for example, an owner-occupancy requirement), a condition the city said it cannot enforce following recent legal developments; instead the council focused on physical-site conditions it can require and enforce through permitting and code enforcement.

The applicant may now pursue building permits after recording the unity-of-title agreement with the county and meeting the conditions placed on the ADU approval.