[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6208022,"mediaKeyId","3750065-32b74b3e7109fa0bdc8ba6a47e09e67a","parentId",3750065,"title","Planning commission proposes survey, subcommittee to study public restroom locations and access","audioSeconds",812,"startMs",1807000,"endMs",2619000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3750065-32b74b3e7109fa0bdc8ba6a47e09e67a&start=1807&end=2619","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3750065-32b74b3e7109fa0bdc8ba6a47e09e67a/thumbnail_1807000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6208022/Ocean-Shores/Grays-Harbor-County/Washington/Planning-commission-proposes-survey-subcommittee-to-study-public-restroom-locations-and-access","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208022-c16e6591e4ac8028b94f97734c4315d9/orig.mp4?Expires=1773140486&Signature=De9lxzPOpN57o4mbUKo4KO1LQU-hbrjsj9-MYjHvYBb6SzMg1EKHqilWNqQMSOWARrXmTNwBQI9FVoE-KZsI4F87EA8vt6EGcqrK2eYnE~zEjhpOypPTWexhJb06VarI4s1ibS0A-fDV6Lwtu3KOGZTM~y8XIE9heQqp731rbOF2bsalJYNmsmUHS44xjLdXBmOHZw1gU9455YHESonHtJrtz42ISiHwWJ6WTvvwcVNy91hlGWjxA8v2gANlp9995ebYOZQM4jP5bWLhNpTdjUVq7kpR4Kp4xGvfdQ26Vxyk3Nr16e4NDThU6qOQ0t~8mI0CpHWlf87bK~7DfjwYOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Ocean Shores, WA","date","2025-06-11T00:50:01.053Z","article","The Ocean Shores Planning Commission on Tuesday agreed to assemble a subcommittee and develop a public survey to identify locations and community preferences for public restrooms.

Commissioners said the issue affects visitors, tourists, and some residents who live farther from downtown and cannot easily return home. The proposed approach is to ask merchants, residents and visitors where permanent or temporary restroom facilities would best serve the community and to explore options ranging from improved signage to leased temporary restroom units during peak weekends.

Commissioner Randy and others reported firsthand merchant feedback: shop owners frequently deny restroom access to noncustomers and store restrooms are often used for storage, creating gaps for visitors. Commissioners noted examples from other coastal towns (Cannon Beach, Seaside, Astoria, Long Beach, Westport) where signage and dedicated facilities improved visitor access. One commissioner suggested using an existing city-rented gravel lot near downtown for temporary restroom units during high-demand weekends; another said leasing more elaborate temporary restroom trailers is an option.

The commission asked staff (Nicole, Sarah and Keith were named) to help prepare an online survey and suggested distributing it via the city website and library channels. Commissioners said the survey should focus on location, whether temporary or permanent facilities are preferred, and the feasibility of merchant participation. No funding decisions or permanent siting were made; commissioners emphasized that maintenance, staffing, utilities and budget implications will need additional study.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","06 10 2025 Planning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners agreed to form a subcommittee and draft a community survey to identify optimal locations and solutions for public restrooms, emphasizing signage and temporary leased facilities as possible near-term options.","taxTitle","Ocean Shores, Grays Harbor County, Washington","taxId",72061,"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},6208027,"Planning commission allows temporary intermodal containers tied to building permits; resident raises past enforcement concerns",490,420000,910000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3750065-32b74b3e7109fa0bdc8ba6a47e09e67a&start=420&end=910","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3750065-32b74b3e7109fa0bdc8ba6a47e09e67a/thumbnail_420000.jpg","/articles/6208027/Ocean-Shores/Grays-Harbor-County/Washington/Planning-commission-allows-temporary-intermodal-containers-tied-to-building-permits-resident-raises-past-enforcement-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208027-e9a9bde3b73cebd300f19ef7b0034360/orig.mp4?Expires=1773140486&Signature=h7HjdLB2yj-BW5EBlcru79J3Y9J3vUE2kBDM4wv3W-tENy3Hh4Sg6ZBcMwgEyk5MQ8DQ5mFw9HxH40q6sAtM1vEdzH-6gOE6aFi09JbdRjRnpYbw1kuZY-TPbR~nMXB1U7kLtq63mPCaZR2VM7Pm-WMgByXEFo5KfFjxCoW~eGw4yXBpe5Kw1hffw1-aUEuHk62n0FWHhwh5ejta8hm9xriesGt-1Oj31beJnWlK1D4vd5dzBvxxyt6BBLnC5fbFCy6eAguZdIuk9mjhf62Ney06w4yrBvfAmczucFL~DZYXXCiWsOO11IPpHLI9CitVcG6m3hKO91JWpL9g~DKqhQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning commissioners on Tuesday approved edits to Ocean Shores Municipal Code to permit intermodal shipping containers as temporary accessory structures only when a building permit for the principal structure has been issued and remains in effect.

The commission added a definition for \"intermodal shipping containers\" and amended municipal code section 17.260.06(d) and accessory-structure standards (17.50.11) so that such containers would be allowed under the same conditions applicable to other residential zones but only while a building permit is active; the container must be removed before an occupancy certificate is issued.

Commissioners and staff said the change is intended to align R-6B zoning with other residential zoning and to regulate metal-sided Connex/Connex-style containers and U-Haul \"pods\" consistently. Marshall (city planner) explained the provision addresses an existing allowance in a general regulation that previously permitted metallic siding on outbuildings if a 20-year guarantee was provided; the new definition ties intermodal containers to temporary accessory-permit rules so they cannot remain as permanent residences or sheds that do not meet minimum-size requirements.

During public comment, a resident identified as Susan raised concerns about past city enforcement actions related to shipping containers. She told the commission that at the May 27 meeting a city planner had said \"there is currently nothing in the Ocean Shores municipal code that prevents city shipping containers in residential zones,\" and that several residents had nonetheless been issued criminal citations or warnings for placing containers on private property. Susan said one resident paid for legal representation and ultimately had the case dismissed without prejudice; she asked the commission four questions: on what legal basis were those criminal citations issued, whether the city will provide restitution for legal costs, whether any new prohibition would be applied retroactively, and whether the city will publicly acknowledge prior enforcement errors.

Chair Mark responded that he did not have answers to three of the questions and did not believe the new prohibition (if adopted) would be retroactive. Marshall said the reason for placing the containers under the temporary-accessory category was to ensure R-6B zoning is consistent with other residential zones and to regulate Connex boxes and pods similarly. Commissioners discussed whether to name specific pod brands (U-Haul) in the code and generally agreed the structures should be regulated the same regardless of brand, because \"it looks like a duck and walks like a duck,\" in the words of one commissioner.

The commission moved to approve the edits as written and the motion passed by voice vote (\"Aye\"). Commissioners also discussed enforcement practicality: building permits can be extended for years and property owners may store tools in containers during construction; the adopted language therefore allows such containers while a valid building permit remains in effect. Several commissioners said the code would be revisited if new use patterns or legal challenges emerged.

The commission did not act on restitution or retroactivity; staff said those questions would require further follow-up. No specific fines, case numbers, or restitution actions were recorded at the meeting.","The Ocean Shores Planning Commission approved code language permitting intermodal shipping containers as temporary accessory structures while a building permit for a principal structure is in effect; a resident urged the city to address prior criminal citations for containers that may have lacked explicit code prohibition.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6208032,"Ocean Shores planning commission narrows trapping rules, excludes dogs and cats amid legal concerns",2961,1094000,4055000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3750065-32b74b3e7109fa0bdc8ba6a47e09e67a&start=1094&end=4055","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3750065-32b74b3e7109fa0bdc8ba6a47e09e67a/thumbnail_1094000.jpg","/articles/6208032/Ocean-Shores/Grays-Harbor-County/Washington/Ocean-Shores-planning-commission-narrows-trapping-rules-excludes-dogs-and-cats-amid-legal-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208032-66eb2637bd878f087c4de825901eaa16/orig.mp4?Expires=1773140486&Signature=ArNKsnujqbV-l6QTKw4D5J4r-1QRbeshWzfTTlXubUU09IFpF5QD88qWvDXf3flKtkPH3P1-a8H8CGQIz1KRsjO-G8gFnIHGSHNmA2xcaYRtIg57qa8W6ZJOzOF1xH2Vzc1GnEab6qlQw8nUW4ViYxqjl~qNm7DT95miiiicdO1oZyk7ItiWrdkdKlEpu3xLKoAtW1Zzet82Ya6WK3ZDSTLsvQP0xGLkrRhfQ01KfawhiS-Q1cAPj5FjPryg4JJrnBPsDTDwQRhbnuLA7e5PRi1DhPYmGyMfOyEcfqsnyddSIpUTJCMwHvMqTuKnI9vlr-lATzTgjYqJEFVcKGjHVg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Ocean Shores planning commissioners on Tuesday approved an amendment to the city's draft trapping ordinance that expressly bars trapping of dogs and cats and lays out a multi-step process for authorizing wildlife removals.

Commissioners said the ordinance is meant to allow residents to seek remediation when wildlife causes property damage or threatens safety, while keeping trapping by individuals off private initiative. The commission added language that makes trapping of \"dogs and cats\" unlawful and requires code enforcement to confirm the problem, contact the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and rely on a state-licensed wildlife control operator to obtain permits before trapping begins.

The change matters because it alters who may authorize trapping and how. Under the commission's draft, a resident who claims property damage must first contact city code enforcement. If enforcement \"determines\" there is an issue, the city will contact WDFW and then \"establish contact with a licensed wildlife control operator,\" who must secure required WDFW permits and notify the city safety officer (the chief of police) before trapping begins. The ordinance also states that all costs would be the property owner's responsibility. Commission members repeatedly emphasized that residents acting on their own would remain subject to code penalties.

But during public comment, a legal expert warned the commission that the draft could conflict with Washington state law. Vida (identified only by first name in the record), who said she had reviewed relevant statutes, cautioned the commission that the draft equates \"hunting, trapping, and hunting with a trap,\" when RCW chapters distinguish those activities. She told commissioners the city may lack authority to turn what state law treats as a civil infraction into a Class B criminal offense under the city's code and recommended the commission reexamine the penalties and the procedural language before forwarding it to council. \"Show me where the city has the authority to criminalize what would otherwise be considered a civil infraction under state law,\" she said.

Commissioners and other speakers raised additional implementation questions: who makes the initial determination of \"property damage or personal harm,\" whether code enforcement alone should make that call, whether a right of appeal is needed, how liability is handled if a licensed trapper is hired at the city's direction, and whether commercial pest-control businesses (examples named in the meeting included Beacon) should be exempt or further identified as \"commercial licensed operators.\" One speaker asked that the ordinance explicitly require WDFW or its agent to verify damage, rather than leaving the initial determination solely to the city.

The commission moved to adopt the specific edit that adds dogs and cats to the unlawful list and passed the motion by voice vote (\"Aye\"), with no roll-call tally recorded in the meeting minutes. Commissioners repeatedly said the draft would be revisited to clarify procedural steps and legal exposure before being presented to the City Council.

Commissioner Mark (chair) and staff member Marshall (city planner) both said the draft is designed to prevent unregulated trapping by residents and to route removals through licensed professionals. Vida urged the commission to specifically review RCW 77 (fish and wildlife statutes) and the city's chapter 7 enforcement provisions before finalizing criminal penalties.

Going forward, commissioners instructed staff to gather clarifying information on state statute alignment, return with clearer language on who makes the damage/safety determination, and identify appeal or review pathways. No final City Council action occurred at the meeting; the commission's change will be forwarded per the commission's process.

The commission also discussed commercial \"pods\" (U-Haul-style moving containers) and Connex/intermodal shipping containers in the context of the trapping item only insofar as commercial operators may perform pest control; they did not adopt any commercial-exemption language at this meeting.","The Ocean Shores Planning Commission voted to add a prohibition on trapping dogs and cats and discussed a new process requiring code enforcement and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife involvement before licensed trappers may act; legal commenters warned the draft may conflict with state law and could wrongly criminalize civil infractions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission proposes survey, subcommittee to study public restroom locations and access

Planning commission allows temporary intermodal containers tied to building permits; resident raises past enforcement concerns

Ocean Shores planning commission narrows trapping rules, excludes dogs and cats amid legal concerns