Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Port Waterfront topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Planning Commission to block Port of Ridgefield’s proposed waterfront hotel and dense housing
Summary
Scores of Ridgefield residents pressed the planning commission to revisit phase 1 of the Port of Ridgefield waterfront plan, arguing a proposed 58-room hotel and high-density housing would strain infrastructure, imperil wildlife and could be approved administratively without a public hearing.
Hundreds of residents addressed the Ridgefield Planning Commission in August to oppose the Port of Ridgefield’s proposed waterfront plan, focusing on a 58-room “boutique” hotel and large-scale residential buildings that speakers said would change the character of the waterfront and threaten public access and wildlife.
"We don't want a Portland or Vancouver waterfront in Ridgefield," said Robin Knight, a Ridgefield resident, urging the commission to reconsider whether a hotel of that scale should be able to be approved through a type 1, administrative review by the planning director. Multiple speakers said the Waterfront Mixed Use code does not explicitly list hotels and that the port is relying on a "similar use" determination that could bypass full public hearings.
Speakers cited tangible numbers and local organizing: Nancy Faken of Preserve Ridgefield Waterfront said a petition opposing the plan has "currently runs over 3,300" signatures and urged the commission to check how the port quantifies and analyzes public-survey comments. Mark Zadeh, a longtime resident, said the proposal would "build a wall of private residency along our shoreline" and questioned whether the plan meets specific code mandates for public access and wildlife protections.
Residents repeatedly raised infrastructure and safety concerns, including flood-zone risk, limited access points to the waterfront, impacts on local events (such as dragon boat races), and strained parking: several speakers referenced the boat ramp's annual use and predicted collisions between local traffic and visitors if density increases.
Planning staff and commissioners did not take an action to change the port's plan during the meeting. Commissioners repeatedly encouraged continued public engagement and noted that future code updates and implementation steps will be subject to additional review and hearings.
The meeting record shows residents asked the commission to pursue greater public oversight of waterfront uses and to ensure that decisions of "this magnitude" do not rest solely with a single administrative decision-maker.
