Supervisors unanimously adopt amendments to county flood-damage ordinance after public comment

SAN DIEGO — The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Sept. 25 to adopt amendments to the county Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, County Code 811.101, and related CEQA findings after a public comment period and staff presentation.

Supervisor Montgomery Stepp moved the ordinance and said the changes are intended to reduce flood-insurance costs and improve record-keeping. "Anything we can do to try to help lower the cost of flood insurance must be actualized," Montgomery Stepp said, adding that maintaining floodplain records is important. Supervisor Jim Desmond seconded the measure; the motion passed with all supervisors present voting aye.

The item before the board updated definitions and standards in the county ordinance, and staff noted an errata to the board letter was submitted the day before the meeting. Staff told the board the amendments would not place additional restrictions on housing development in the unincorporated area and that several changes aim to streamline or remove additive requirements. "These changes will not put additional restrictions on housing in the unincorporated area," a staff member said during the hearing.

Public comment on the item was mixed. Some callers urged the board to reject the proposal or sought stronger flood-prevention mandates for new construction, arguing the draft could diminish health and safety protections. One caller said the ordinance felt like "extortion by FEMA" because of perceived insurance-driven incentives; another raised concerns about a 43-page errata filed less than 24 hours before the meeting and questioned staff readiness to clarify technical definitions.

Board members and staff said the amendments were developed with stakeholder input, including building-industry representatives, and that changes were intended to align county practice with FEMA mapping and to permit property owners to qualify for lower flood-insurance premiums when appropriate.

The ordinance adoption was recorded with a unanimous vote; the board did not specify an ordinance number during the hearing and did not announce an effective date on the record. Staff also noted two e-comments on the item were filed in favor before the meeting.

Next steps identified by staff included implementing the ordinance language and related CEQA findings; no litigation or implementation timeline was detailed during the session.