Ridgefield residents urge rethink of Port waterfront redevelopment, cite petition and wildlife concerns

Dozens of residents used two public comment periods at the Ridgefield Planning Commission meeting to press for changes to the Port of Ridgefield’s proposed waterfront redevelopment, saying the plan’s scale and parking arrangements threaten the town’s open space and wildlife habitat.

Robin Knight, a Ridgefield resident, told the commission a petition circulating in the community had grown to almost 2,700 signatures and asked the city to ‘‘reevaluate the scale and density of the project, protect the waterfront’s natural beauty and wildlife, ensure an extensive environmental impact study is done, and address infrastructure and safety planning before development moves forward.’’

Shauna Fisher, another resident, described the waterfront as ‘‘the heart of Ridgefield’’ and urged commissioners to ‘‘take a step back’’ and work with the port to consider alternatives that preserve views, wildlife and downtown character. ‘‘You can’t just move an osprey nest,’’ Fisher said, arguing that certain natural features and wildlife values are irreplaceable.

Dion Hess, who said he has lived in Ridgefield 20 years, recounted outreach around the city and said he had ‘‘yet to find a person that thinks it’s a good idea’’ as proposed. Hess also relayed community concern about parking and said he was told in earlier meetings the city did not want the boat ramp to become regional and that some residents fear restrictions on access for nonresidents.

Planning staff told commissioners the port has not yet submitted development plans to the city for staff review. Miss Lust, who led the staff presentation on the comprehensive plan update, said the draft economic development policy to ‘‘work with the Port of Ridgefield and the waterfront master developer’’ reflects ongoing conversations but that ‘‘the port has not submitted development plans at this time that our staff were able to review.’’

The public testimony asked for a more robust environmental review, clearer infrastructure and parking plans, and meaningful community reengagement before major approvals. No formal action on the waterfront was taken by the commission at the meeting; public comment was recorded and staff said materials and timelines would be posted on the city’s project page ahead of future hearings.

Next steps: staff will continue the comprehensive plan update and coordinate with Clark County’s timeline; the county’s final environmental impact statement was noted as on track for July 24, and future workshops and public hearings on later batches of plan elements are expected this summer.