Willows planning commissioners begin broad municipal code review, flag zoning mapping discrepancy near Road 57

The Willows Planning Commission reviewed large sections of the Willows Municipal Code on an ongoing overhaul meant to align the city’s zoning rules with its recently adopted general plan and to prepare for a joint July 10 meeting with the City Council and contract planners.

Commissioners and staff focused first on district definitions and mapping, saying some zones and land-use designations do not match and that several code cross-references are confusing. City contract planner Delaney Garlic and city staff said they will bring recommendations to the July 10 joint meeting so the council and commission can direct broad edits to the code.

The commission discussed a specific mapping discrepancy north of Road 57. The zoning map labels a neighborhood near the I‑5 interchange as Highway Commercial while the land use designation in the 2022 general plan shows the same parcel as Mixed Use. Commissioners asked staff to confirm whether the mixed-use coloring was an error or intended; staff said changing the general plan designation would require a formal general plan amendment ordinance.

Commissioners also reviewed how the code layers permissions across districts. For example, the Highway Commercial district currently lists a narrow set of permitted uses but allows most General Commercial and Central Commercial uses by conditional use permit; Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial sections similarly inherit permitted and conditional uses by cross-reference. Delaney Garlic said that cross‑references are common but that “there’s probably room to improve that” by listing and explaining uses more clearly within each zone.

Commissioners raised multiple places where the code’s definitions are out of date or unclear—automobile service station versus fuel sales, the meaning of “fuel yard,” and the treatment of storage containers. Staff recommended consolidating or relocating definitions into the chapter where they are used so readers do not have to cross‑reference several sections.

Other zoning items flagged for follow up included: whether the fire department parcel should be reclassified as a Public Facilities district (it is presently shown as R‑1 on the zoning map); use and location of open space (the Basin Street detention basin was discussed as an example); and whether agricultural districts remain necessary inside the city limits or should be retained only as holding zones for annexation. The Basin Street planned development and other combining districts were noted as areas where planned, coordinated development standards are appropriate.

The commission also discussed tools to fund ongoing maintenance in new planned developments, including lighting and landscape assessment districts, which place assessments on property tax bills to pay for public lighting and landscaping in specified districts. Staff said the city currently maintains several districts, including a Birch Street district and a Basin Street district, and that the municipal code could reference assessment districts explicitly.

The commission asked staff and the contract planner to prepare revisions and options for the July 10 joint meeting and to return a single ordinance package where possible to implement multiple map and code edits.