[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6631120,"mediaKeyId","2682353-6a712198d19baba5fdeeca2fca626487","parentId",2682353,"title","Planning commission signals support for renewable, regulated parklets; asks staff to draft standards and lease terms","audioSeconds",2143,"startMs",6633000,"endMs",8776000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2682353-6a712198d19baba5fdeeca2fca626487&start=6633&end=8776","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2682353-6a712198d19baba5fdeeca2fca626487/thumbnail_6633000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6631120/Mount-Shasta/Siskiyou-County/California/Planning-commission-signals-support-for-renewable-regulated-parklets-asks-staff-to-draft-standards-and-lease-terms","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6631120-0dc31bd8dc4bfcb7d3a19a73845e0ced/orig.mp4?Expires=1775852508&Signature=cIpq1EWlHZwHB8vS8OptdvossaPrDke~kA7644tGcPHsWNOnaHm-mpwXdTbdQH1XqyIX4j9MnS1rkPmAQzCVc8Z3PtXHLrQEdln6RRjfOcxmgZjcNxCc~ot18AmsEk8gP8QdIeMlAK6qDJSkrD6kFEpikxjDzdjbqY8Chw5Xwij1fD0R58rJo6r2MSRwTYXSK3ofPzK-CDY--fgF7BnugSYR90bELFh7674HHjbyJiLT8OJlUppG~BexWkZ-2INMPM7JJwcxKl5Gehk-CWYMFIG-tWGqFlkAUE1kRpoixgeTdqgFc9EbuPeD-Wal1ATZshYnebHj3LKiA~iZN2QRwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author"," City of Mount Shasta Public Meetings","date","2025-03-19T03:50:05.713Z","article","The Mount Shasta Planning Commission on March 18 discussed the city’s temporary parklet program and directed staff to pursue a revised regulatory approach that treats established parklets as renewable but subject to annual inspections and defined design and operational standards.

Staff overview and the distinction between parklets and dining enclosures

Planning staff described three policy paths: (1) leave parklets unregulated as one-offs; (2) adopt moderate regulation that preserves variety while protecting safety and aesthetics; or (3) adopt a tightly prescriptive set of pre-approved designs. Jeff emphasized that parklets (wood structures in the public right-of-way) are distinct from larger “dining enclosure” projects that would require street-level infrastructure changes and significant capital investment.

Commission direction and operational details

After discussion and public comment — including attendees who said parklets add vibrancy and revenue to downtown — commissioners indicated support for a middle course:
- allow existing parklets to remain under an ongoing permit regime but require scheduled inspections and maintenance compliance;
- adopt a lease-by-area fee structure (rather than the current nominal fee), with staff to recommend the rate and seasonality;
- keep final permit approval with the Planning Commission for new parklets and allow staff-level renewals when no structural or aesthetic changes are made; and
- require design and operational standards that address safety (life-safety and fire access), maintenance, utility routing and pest control.

Commissioners and members of the public raised details including winter removal or modular design for snow operations, pedestrian circulation by crosswalks, a 20-foot fire-access corridor and screen/landscape treatments. Business owners and residents spoke in support: a public commenter said the parklets “make downtown more vibrant” and urged clear maintenance and safety rules.

Fees and public access

The commission discussed whether parklet areas leased to businesses should remain publicly accessible. Commissioners noted a trade-off: public access favors community use but complicates liability and maintenance standards. The commission did not adopt a final fee rate or public-access rule; staff will return with specific fee proposals and options for public-access language.

Next steps

The commission asked staff to draft ordinance language for the next meeting to implement a “moderate regulation” approach (two-track: custom designs allowed; pre-approved modular designs available). Staff will draft permit language that requires annual inspections, fee recovery, options for seasonal operation, and a recommended lease-by-area fee schedule for council consideration.

Ending

Planning staff said the draft ordinance will return to the commission for public hearings. Commissioners also asked staff to coordinate this work with longer-term streetscape and grant-funded projects so future sidewalk/dining infrastructure plans are compatible with any parklet program.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","03/18/25 - Planning Commission Meeting (Livestream) - City of Mount Shasta","oneSentenceSummary","After hearing public comment, the Mount Shasta Planning Commission on March 18 directed staff to draft revisions to the parklet ordinance that would allow renewed parklets under moderate design rules, require inspections, move to a lease-by-area fee model and keep final approvals with the commission.","taxTitle","Mount Shasta, Siskiyou County, California","taxId",51069,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6631125,"Mount Shasta planning commissioners direct staff to draft detailed tiny-home-on-wheels ordinance",5639,724000,6363000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2682353-6a712198d19baba5fdeeca2fca626487&start=724&end=6363","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2682353-6a712198d19baba5fdeeca2fca626487/thumbnail_724000.jpg","/articles/6631125/Mount-Shasta/Siskiyou-County/California/Mount-Shasta-planning-commissioners-direct-staff-to-draft-detailed-tiny-home-on-wheels-ordinance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6631125-6d936ef32dbb3d09a1b6d2a3f8dcdde5/orig.mp4?Expires=1775852508&Signature=TiASIZmwz564N4mlbaYQV~BjxmUfyg3C9UqugA5qBSASdQgUuLfxIl1RjNuLnuWkhM3Z7s7Ff8osLDDAkP2e-kz3BxCHkS7EGEsgJpxYeB2xWQByp14q0jpnEA9C3ZiBc4~Th50sQ4bS5QJKcBBWSk89UQfidxIayi~9VQj-yyKoFLTQ1kO2tM9HaFhMlABtKEeObf3Pny8rKUoAcLdbDcvUx4Z6bMP8q75IbitZaBKiCI8N3oUao9sW4spjvTjYlBk~bZ7R8WPGY-97u5KwIzBr9jUJpfNaLnH7gl1Huvw31bgwmDgXsVgbvLAHianRSWOORgzBJoC2OIHaCfcppg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Mount Shasta Planning Commission members spent more than an hour on March 18 discussing possible regulations for tiny homes on wheels and related ‘tiny home village’ developments, directing staff to prepare a full ordinance rather than a narrow amendment to existing RV/mobile-home rules.

Commission staff member Jeff, who led the presentation, said the work responds to two drivers: the city’s newly certified housing element and council direction to explore the housing type. He told commissioners that “in order to be a building code certified, tiny home on wheels, it needs to comply with Appendix Q of the tiny home building code regulations within the California Code of Regulations,” and that Appendix Q imposes standards that distinguish these units from recreational vehicles or conventional mobile homes.

Why it matters: Commissioners said they want a regulatory approach that allows small, lower-cost housing while protecting neighborhood character and public safety. Commissioners repeatedly asked for clear site-development standards — common open space, landscaping, parking, access and fire access — and for staff to tie the ordinance to established objective design standards used for cottage-style developments in the city.

Key points from the discussion

- Staff recommendation and scope: Jeff outlined two regulation paths: a minimal approach that treats THOWs like recreation vehicles with limited zones, or a “full ordinance” that treats Appendix Q-certified THOWs as dwelling units with site development, design and ADU-related code changes. He said examples in other jurisdictions pair Appendix Q construction standards with stricter site and design standards so THOWs read like cottages rather than RVs.

- Construction and safety standards: Jeff explained Appendix Q’s focus on unit dimensions, loft egress, ceiling heights and other life-safety measures. He said these standards raise the construction bar above typical RV rules and allow form-based regulation (roof pitch, cladding, skirting) to make THOWs appear cottage-like.

- Zoning, ownership and scale: Commissioners asked whether THOWs could be allowed on privately owned lots as primary residences or only in multi-unit village formats. Jeff said city code could limit where THOW villages go, and that the commission could require site size, spacing and density limits. Commissioners noted common concerns: resale/condition of used units over time, utility hookups, fire access, whether THOWs could be ADUs, and whether ownership should be limited by zone (for example, owner-developer model in some zones, leased pads in others).

- Design precedents and spacing: Staff referenced the city’s objective cottage design standard (a cluster of up to nine small detached structures with a seven-foot minimum separation between cottages) as a starting model for site layout. Jeff and commissioners discussed minimum fire access widths (about 20 feet), turning radii for delivery and service vehicles, and the need for skirting and foundation/anchoring rules.

Public comment and responses

Several residents and visitors offered support and cautioned about parking and maintenance. Johanna Althorfer suggested using city-owned parcels such as Orchard and Landing for temporary or permanent small-unit sites; a commenter raised parking and turnover concerns. Commissioner questions and public comments both emphasized that any ordinance should avoid the appearance of a conventional mobile-home park by requiring higher design and site standards.

Commission direction and next steps

On a staff request for direction, a majority of commissioners favored developing a full, separate tiny-home-on-wheels ordinance rather than only amending the city’s RV/mobile-home code. Commissioners asked staff to:
- prepare a draft ordinance that references Appendix Q as the construction standard and that articulates site development and objective design standards (skirting, cladding, massing, common open space, parking, landscaping);
- analyze where in the city THOW villages or ADU-THOWs would be permitted and provide a zoning map and site-suitability analysis;
- consider an ownership-by-zone approach (for example, owner-managed villages in certain zones, owner-occupied ADUs in others) and present options; and
- return with Appendix Q excerpts, example ordinances, recommended standards for spacing/separation, fire access, and proposed public hearing schedule.

There was no formal vote on a final ordinance. Jeff said he would “dissect Appendix Q” and bring a draft code and a zoning map back to the commission for public hearings and subsequent recommendation to city council.

Ending

The commission closed the item by asking staff to proceed with a full ordinance draft that ties Appendix Q construction standards to the city’s objective design standards and to present zoning and ownership options at the commission’s next meeting.","At its March 18 meeting, the Mount Shasta Planning Commission discussed rules for tiny homes on wheels (THOWs), heard public comment and directed staff to prepare a robust ordinance that uses California’s Appendix Q as the construction standard and sets site, design and zoning rules to keep THOW developments context-sensitive.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission signals support for renewable, regulated parklets; asks staff to draft standards and lease terms

Mount Shasta planning commissioners direct staff to draft detailed tiny-home-on-wheels ordinance