On August 12 the Port of Ridgefield held a commission meeting that drew a full house of roughly 30 additional seats and several more people waiting in the hallway. The public‑comment portion was dominated by residents who opposed the waterfront development plan currently slated for Phase I.
Key concerns raised by locals
Members of the Preserve Ridgefield Waterfront Group, including longtime residents Robin Knight and Wendy McIntyre, led the opposition. Their petition, which had 3,446 signatures at press time, asks the port to revise the confirmed Phase I elements: a nine‑acre public park, a 58‑room boutique hotel, a 25,000‑square‑foot office building, mixed‑use and residential structures, and associated parking.
Knight, who moved to Ridgefield in 2020, said the development’s height – six to seven stories – is too large for the area. She would prefer buildings limited to one or two stories and more protected parkland. McIntyre, an eight‑year resident, highlighted the existing boat‑launch parking, which she says already provides only 35 shared spots and is insufficient for local anglers and fishers.
Both women warned that increased lighting and taller structures could disturb the nearby Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, pushing sensitive bird species farther inland.
Perceived lack of genuine community input
Critics also argued that the port’s engagement process feels like a formality rather than a true opportunity for input. Knight pointed to a June 17 meeting where Port Executive Director Ethan Perry presented Phase I as largely finalized before public comment began. The perception that decisions were already made was reinforced when, on July 3, the port emailed residents stating that only “smaller ticket items” were open for feedback, while the overall scope and scale remained unchanged.
Local YouTuber Connor Webb, who has covered the issue for over two decades, echoed these concerns, noting that the April renderings do not align with what residents want. He said the port’s timeline was extended by a year to allow more community input, but the core plan appears unchanged.
Survey data and disputed interpretations
The port cites a 2022 waterfront survey of roughly 1,500 respondents that it says reflects five years of public input. Knight’s group, however, argues the survey’s forced‑ranking format obscured true preferences. According to the group, recreational and public‑access uses ranked highest, while residential components ranked lowest. They claim the port’s use of the survey to justify the current concept is misleading.
Potential compromises and next steps
While no pro‑development voice was available for comment, some residents offered ideas for compromise. Webb suggested a cleaner, family‑friendly waterfront access that limits traffic and avoids massive retail expansion. He also proposed mixed‑use housing that would let small‑business owners live and work on site, fostering a responsible waterfront community.
McIntyre asked for an enhanced boat launch with additional queuing space. In response, the port indicated a feasibility study for launch and queuing capacity is underway, with a grant application slated for September. Options under consideration include reconfigured parking, an extended launch area, and added day‑dock space.
Port’s upcoming actions
The port plans to review all community feedback gathered over the summer and will hold a fall meeting to share findings and outline next steps. The current public‑survey closed on August 17, and the port has pledged to incorporate the input into any future revisions.
For now, the Preserve Ridgefield Waterfront Group and other concerned citizens continue to monitor the process, urging the port to scale back the project, protect wildlife habitat, and address the parking shortfall that local anglers rely on.
Original reporting: Clark County Today (Vancouver WA) — read the source article.
