A packed room during a Thursday, April 23, Ridgefield City Council meeting displayed growing frustration among residents against the Port of Ridgefield’s proposed waterfront project.
More than 20 commenters spoke against the project during public comment, with total attendance reaching roughly 60 to 70 people. Several speakers urged councilmembers to intervene or slow the project, citing concerns including overdevelopment, environmental impacts and the scale of development near the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge.
The revitalization of the roughly 41-acre port-owned property has been years in the making, following decades of environmental cleanup. The waterfront property previously hosted the Pacific Wood Treating Co. facility, which operated there from 1964 to 1993, leaving behind soil contaminants. Since the mid-1990s, the port has spent roughly $90 million, including millions in grant funding, cleaning up the site in partnership with the Washington Department of Ecology. Crews removed and treated soil and groundwater, installed a clean soil cap and established long-term environmental controls, with the intention of eventually redeveloping the property under a different use.
Over time, the waterfront would evolve into a mixed-use district blending economic development, housing and recreation. The full site plan includes a 58-room boutique hotel, an array of buildings ranging from office/commercial, mixed-use and residential. The Port of Ridgefield would also move its headquarters into a new waterfront office building. The full site plan includes a roughly 9-acre park, with one active area including trails to the north, and a south zone for active play and recreation, including an amphitheater.
Conceptual plans have been shared with the public through prior public outreach events and port meetings. But for many who attended the port’s Spring Commission Coffee at the Clark County Fairgrounds on Tuesday, April 21, the scope of that vision came as a surprise.
“I support smaller, strategic growth, but growth without accountability is not progress, it's risk,” Travis Goodwin said during public comment on Thursday before the City Council. “(It) ultimately falls on the taxpayers and the residents of this community.”
Goodwin, who subsequently announced a run for city council Position 3 during his remarks, questioned the port’s financial transparency and called for an independent review before any approvals move forward.
“Tonight I'm asking you to step into your role, not as a rubber stamp, but as a safeguard, as the hard questions demand real answers,” he said. “If those answers aren't there, don't approve the project because once these decisions are made, they're hard to undo.”
Several residents said the port’s plans to establish a hotel and apartments were inappropriate for the area.
(This) has residential, a five-story hotel, sadness, I think, was one of the key things that I walked away with,” Matt Hagerty said. “People walk down there. I walked down there at least three or four times a week along that path. And to think there’s gonna be… large apartment complexes and a hotel down there.”
Residents also raised concerns about traffic, environmental impacts and the site’s proximity to the wildlife refuge, particularly in light of ongoing efforts to support bird migration in the area.
“It is a horrific addition to a city that just had a special occasion for lights out for bird migration,” Hagerty said, referring to Ridgefield Mayor Matt Cole’s proclamation encouraging residents to turn off bright outdoor lights during the night to support migration. “Complexes right next to the Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge, all those white geese, they're not going to be there anymore.”
While most speakers opposed the project, one former city official urged a broader perspective, noting the port's long history of redevelopment discussions. Rob Aichele, who resigned from the city council in 2024, spoke in favor of the port’s efforts.
“I remember the developer talking about having view corridors in there, so it's not just a wall of buildings,” he said. “It's not gonna just block off the view… Growth is inevitable. As the city grows… I have faith that the city and the public works department will… figure out how to deal with the traffic.”
When asked to elaborate on the city’s authority by councilmember Judy Chipman, City Manager Steve Stuart explained that the city cannot directly stop development that complies with existing zoning regulations, and that no formal development application has yet been submitted for the waterfront site.
He added that the city’s role would come later in the process, once a formal proposal is submitted and reviewed under established zoning and development procedures. Any additional negotiations, such as a development agreement, would depend on whether the proposal seeks exceptions or enhancements beyond the current code.
All councilmembers present during Thursday’s meeting thanked the public for sharing their concerns. Because some who spoke during public comment directed their anger towards the council, Chipman elaborated that the city’s control over the port-owned property is limited.
“The public should be aware that the council and the port are two separate entities,” Chipman said. “The port has its own board; they’re a separate entity from the city… If you can spread the word to your friends and neighbors, and all the people that are so unhappy with that, please do, and keep going to those port meetings and let them hear what you know you want to say, and make sure that they hear it.”
The project remains in the planning phase, with construction on initial infrastructure potentially beginning as early as 2027. Readers can learn more about the project at portridgefield.org/ridgefield-waterfront.
