Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs And Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commissioners press staff to tighten sign definitions and nonconforming-sign timeline
Summary
The Willows City Planning Commission debated draft sign-code language on vehicle signs, feather flags and nonconforming signs, asking staff to clarify definitions, preserve American/state flags, set timelines for bringing older signs into compliance, and consult public safety on sight-line issues.
Planning commissioners on the Willows City Planning Commission spent several agenda items scrutinizing proposed revisions to the municipal sign code, focusing on how the draft defines "vehicle sign," the treatment of feather-style advertising flags, and how the code will treat previously installed nonconforming signs.
Commissioners raised the vehicle-sign definition after staff pointed to examples such as parked trailers or semi-trailers that function as long-term advertising. One commissioner said the draft should clarify whether a mobile food truck or trailer parked repeatedly on the same block for more than 72 hours should be regulated as an on-site advertising sign; staff replied they will revise the definition to address that possibility.
On flags, several commissioners said the current draft places flags in the exempt-signs category but does not distinguish advertising feather flags from symbolic flags. "We need to redefine a flag," a commissioner said, and commissioners agreed to exclude American and state flags from any advertising prohibition while treating commercial feather flags as potential advertising.
Commissioners also pressed staff about nonconforming signs. Staff pointed to draft language (section 18.125.190) requiring nonconforming signs to be brought into conformance or removed but acknowledged the text lacked an explicit timeline in some places. At least one commissioner noted the draft includes a six-month notification provision; commissioners discussed whether a shorter notification (30 or 60 days) might be appropriate for safety-related cases but said the six-month language should be made clear in the code.
Public-safety implications featured in the discussion. Commissioners said signs that obstruct drivers' lines of sight at intersections create hazards and asked staff to align the sign code with the city's design standards and line-of-sight measurements. One commissioner suggested consulting the highway patrol or local police for best practices; staff agreed to seek that input.
Staff also noted the draft allows previously lawful signs to remain (grandfathered) but said changes to design standards or lighting might trigger a permit review. Commissioners directed staff to clarify enforcement paths (how permits are tracked by address or project file) and to include explicit timelines and notice procedures for nonconforming signs.
The commission did not take a formal vote on these provisions during the session; staff said they would update the draft language and return with clarified definitions, enforcement timelines, and recommended references to design standards.
