Daly City planning panel backs minor zoning code changes, extends permit life to five years

The Daly City Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve a set of minor zoning‑code amendments after amending a staff proposal to extend permit expirations from the recommended three years to a five‑year cap.

Planning staff presented redlined changes to chapters of the Daly City Municipal Code that would (1) reintroduce and clarify the citywide definition of building height for properties outside the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) zone, (2) codify a generally triangular landscaped area for front‑yard paving that creates a parking space while reducing stormwater runoff, (3) exempt condominium subdivisions from a separate use‑permit requirement in some circumstances, and (4) change the expiration rules for use permits and design‑review approvals. Staff also reported that the proposed amendments are categorically exempt from further environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061.

Fielding, the staff presenter, said the building‑height language being reintroduced restores definitions that were inadvertently removed when the CMU zoning rules were adopted and described how height would be measured for different roof types. On front‑yard paving, Fielding said the triangular landscape requirement is intended to direct vehicles to back out onto the driveway rather than expand curb cuts and to limit runoff into storm drains.

Staff originally proposed that permits expire three years after approval, with applicants able to request an additional two years. Several commissioners pushed for a longer initial period, citing the time projects need to secure construction loans, obtain multiple building permits and overcome delays (including pandemic impacts). One commissioner told staff that “one year is completely unrealistic” for many projects and urged the commission to give applicants more certainty.

After discussion, the commission amended the staff recommendation to a five‑year expiration capped at five years and voted to forward the amendments and the CEQA determination to the City Council with that amendment. A motion to approve the recommendation was moved and seconded; the measure passed unanimously on a roll‑call vote.

The commission also asked staff to return with a general‑plan refresher at an upcoming meeting so new commissioners and the public can better understand the plan’s elements and the timing and cost of a comprehensive update. Staff noted the city’s general plan was adopted in 2013 and carries a planning horizon to 2035; staff said a full update is a lengthy, potentially costly process and that the housing element is on a separate, more frequent cycle.

The planning commission opened a public hearing on the amendments but no members of the public spoke and no email comments were submitted. With the referral to council decided, the commission adjourned.