Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Accommodations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors object as Brookings city council opens process for reasonable housing accommodations
Summary
Council held a first reading of an ordinance to establish a formal process for reasonable accommodations under the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act; multiple nearby residents urged enforcement of existing zoning and warned the rule could allow more unrelated occupants in single‑family neighborhoods. Second reading set for Sept. 10.
Brookings — The City Council on Aug. 13 held a first reading of an ordinance to establish a process for reasonable accommodations under the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, prompting extended public comment from neighbors worried the change would undermine existing zoning protections.
City Attorney Steve Bridal said the ordinance would create an application and hearing process so the city can evaluate requests for modifications to local rules that may impede housing for people with disabilities. Bridal told the council the procedure is intended to provide “clear guidance that allows the council to consider all of the evidence” when deciding whether to modify a rule on a case‑by‑case basis. The ordinance is a first reading; the second reading is scheduled for Sept. 10.
Neighbors who live near at least one property that has been the subject of recent enforcement actions urged the council to enforce current rules rather than create exceptions. Kara Bianchi told the council, “This zoning ordinance is allowing more than 3 unrelated people to live in a single family home in any neighborhood in this community” and said a house next to her has eight people living there without a rental license. Molly Richter, who said she represents about 20 neighbors, urged stricter notice standards and warned that the ordinance’s current text could allow many more such homes across the city.
Other residents, including former SDSU urban geography professor Ed Hogan, argued the existing family‑definition zoning and related restrictions are long‑standing and intended to protect neighborhood character. Several speakers asked the council to postpone action, enforce existing ordinances and expand public notification for nearby residents if the council moves forward.
Council members repeatedly said the ordinance is procedural: it would not grant automatic permission to change occupancy rules but would set the process for evaluating claims under federal law. Councilmember Tiltonburn noted the ordinance does not approve any specific home and said it is intended to give the city a path to “host the conversations” and consider accommodation requests. Bridal emphasized the council could deny requests where the location or neighborhood impact warranted a denial.
What happens next: The ordinance had its first reading on Aug. 13. Council members indicated they will hold a second reading and additional public input on Sept. 10 before making any final decision.
